[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64637-64690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24103]
[[Page 64637]]
Vol. 78
Tuesday,
No. 209
October 29, 2013
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for 15 Species on Hawaii Island; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 64638]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0070; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY09
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for 15 Species on Hawaii Island
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended, for 15 species on the island of Hawaii. In addition,
we are recognizing a taxonomic change for one Hawaiian plant currently
listed as an endangered species and revising the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants accordingly. The effect of this regulation is to
conserve these species under the Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in
preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana
Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at 808-792-
9400; or by facsimile at 808-792-9581.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office,
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone
at 808-792-9400; or by facsimile at 808-792-9581. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. This is a final rule to list 15
species (13 plants, 1 insect (picture-wing fly), and 1 crustacean
(anchialine pool shrimp)) from the island of Hawaii, in the State of
Hawaii, as endangered species. In addition, in this final rule, we also
recognize a taxonomic change for one endangered plant species, and
revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants accordingly.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the 15 Hawaii Island
species are currently in danger of extinction throughout all their
ranges as the result of ongoing threats that include the destruction
and modification of habitat from nonnative feral ungulates (e.g., pigs,
goats); competition with nonnative plant and animal species;
agricultural and urban development; wildfire, erosion, drought, and
hurricanes; climate change; predation and herbivory; the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; human dumping of nonnative fish and
trash; small numbers of individuals and populations; hybridization; the
lack of reproduction in the wild; loss of host plants; and competition
with nonnative tipulid flies (large crane flies). We fully considered
comments from the public, including comments we received during a
public hearing, and comments we received from peer reviewers, on the
proposed rule.
Peer reviewers support our methods. We obtained opinions from 11
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
technical assumptions, to review our analysis, and to determine whether
or not we used the best available information. Nine (2 plant reviewers,
2 picture-wing fly reviewers, and 5 of the 7 anchialine pool shrimp
reviewers) of these 11 peer reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and provided additional information, clarifications, and
suggestions to improve this final rule. One shrimp peer reviewer
recommended further surveys for the anchialine pool shrimp, and a
second shrimp reviewer commented that we should proceed with caution
regarding listing the shrimp due to the lack of biological information.
A response to all peer review comments is provided elsewhere in this
final rule.
The final critical habitat designation for Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as
proposed in the Federal Register (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012), is
still under development and undergoing agency review. It will publish
in the near future in the Federal Register under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2013-0028.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal actions for these species prior to October 17, 2012, are
outlined in our proposed rule (77 FR 63928), which was published on
that date. Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment
period, which closed on December 17, 2012. In addition, we published a
public notice of the proposed rule on October 20, 2012, in the local
Honolulu Star Advertiser, West Hawaii Today, and the Hawaii Tribune
Herald newspapers. On April 30, 2013, we published in the Federal
Register a document (78 FR 25243) that made available and requested
public comments on the draft economic analysis for the October 17,
2012, proposed critical habitat designation (77 FR 63928); announced a
public information meeting and hearing to be held in Kailua-Kona,
Hawaii Island, on May 15, 2013; and reopened the comment period on the
October 17, 2012, proposed rule for an additional 30 days. This second
comment period closed on May 30, 2013. In total, we accepted public
comments on the October 17, 2012, proposed rule for 90 days.
Background
Hawaii Island Species Addressed in This Final Rule
The table below (Table 1) provides the scientific name, common
name, and listing status for the species that are the subjects of this
final rule.
[[Page 64639]]
Table 1--The Hawaii Island Species Addressed in This Final Rule
[Note that many of the species share the same common name]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific name Common name(s) Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plants:
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. kookoolau............................. Endangered.
hillebrandiana.
Bidens micrantha ssp. kookoolau............................. Endangered.
ctenophylla.
Cyanea marksii............... haha.................................. Endangered.
Cyanea tritomantha........... aku................................... Endangered.
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis...... haiwale............................... Endangered.
Cyrtandra wagneri............ haiwale............................... Endangered.
Mezoneuron kavaiense uhiuhi................................ Endangered--Listed in 1986.
(taxonomic change accepted)
(Formerly listed as
Caesalpinia kavaiense).
Phyllostegia floribunda...... NCN \1\............................... Endangered.
Pittosporum hawaiiense....... hoawa, haawa.......................... Endangered.
Platydesma remyi............. NCN................................... Endangered.
Pritchardia lanigera......... loulu................................. Endangered.
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei NCN................................... Endangered.
Schiedea hawaiiensis......... NCN................................... Endangered.
Stenogyne cranwelliae........ NCN................................... Endangered.
Animals:
Drosophila digressa.......... picture-wing fly...................... Endangered.
Vetericaris chaceorum........ anchialine pool shrimp................ Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NCN = no common name.
Taxonomic Change Since Listing for One Plant Species
We listed Mezoneuron kavaiense as an endangered species in 1986 (51
FR 24672; July 8, 1986), based on the taxonomic treatment of Hillebrand
(1888, pp. 110-111). Following the reduction of Mezoneuron to
Caesalpinia by Hattink (1974, p. 5), Geesink et al. (1990, pp. 646-647)
changed the name to Caesalpinia kavaiensis. In 1989, the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants (List) was revised to identify the
listed entity as Caesalpinia kavaiense, although the specific epithet
was misspelled in the List (at that time the correct spelling for this
entity was Caesalpinia kavaiensis). Recent phylogenetic studies support
separation of Mezoneuron from Caesalpinia (Bruneau et al. 2008, p.
710). The recognized scientific name for this species is Mezoneuron
kavaiense (Wagner et al. 2012, p. 37). The range of the species between
the time of listing and now has not changed. Therefore, we recognize
the listed species as Mezoneuron kavaiense. We are amending the List to
reflect this taxonomic change, but this amendment does not in any way
change the listed entity or its protections under the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.).
An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Listing 15 Species on Hawaii Island
On the island of Hawaii, as on most of the Hawaiian Islands, native
species that occur in the same habitat types (ecosystems) depend on
many of the same biological features and the successful functioning of
that ecosystem to survive. We have therefore organized the species
addressed in this final rule by common ecosystem. Although the listing
determination for each species is analyzed separately, we have
organized the individual analysis for each species within the context
of the broader ecosystem in which it occurs to avoid redundancy. In
addition, native species that share ecosystems often face a suite of
common factors that may be a threat to them, and ameliorating or
eliminating these threats for each individual species often requires
the exact same management actions in the exact same areas. Effective
management of these threats often requires implementation of
conservation actions at the ecosystem scale to enhance or restore
critical ecological processes and provide for long-term viability of
those species in their native environment. Thus, by taking this
approach, we hope not only to organize this final rule efficiently, but
also to more effectively focus conservation management efforts on the
common threats that occur across these ecosystems. Those efforts would
facilitate restoration of ecosystem functionality for the recovery of
each species, and provide conservation benefits for associated native
species, thereby potentially precluding the need to list other species
under the Act that occur in these shared ecosystems. In addition, this
approach is in accord with the primary stated purpose of the Act (see
section 2(b)): ``to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which
endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.''
We are listing the plants Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii,
Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi,
Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, Schidea
hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae; and the animals Drosophila
digressa and Vetericaris chaceorum, from Hawaii Island as endangered
species. These 15 species (13 plants, 1 anchialine pool shrimp, and 1
picture-wing fly) are found in 10 ecosystem types: anchialine pool,
coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane
mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff (Table 2).
Table 2--The 15 Hawaii Island Species and the Ecosystems Upon Which They Depend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
Ecosystem -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plants Animals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchialine Pool......................... ........................... Vetericaris chaceorum.
[[Page 64640]]
Coastal................................. Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana.
Lowland Dry............................. Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla.
Lowland Mesic........................... Pittosporum hawaiiense..... Drosophila digressa.
Pritchardia lanigera.......
Lowland Wet............................. Cyanea marksii.............
Cyanea tritomantha.........
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis....
Cyrtandra wagneri..........
Phyllostegia floribunda....
Platydesma remyi...........
Pritchardia lanigera.......
Montane Dry............................. Schiedea hawaiiensis.......
Montane Mesic........................... Phyllostegia floribunda.... Drosophila digressa.
Pittosporum hawaiiense.....
Montane Wet............................. Cyanea marksii............. Drosophila digressa.
Cyanea tritomantha.........
Phyllostegia floribunda....
Pittosporum hawaiiense.....
Platydesma remyi...........
Pritchardia lanigera.......
Schiedea diffusa ssp.
macraei.
Stenogyne cranwelliae......
Dry Cliff............................... Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana.
Wet Cliff............................... Cyanea tritomantha.........
Pritchardia lanigera.......
Stenogyne cranwelliae......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each species, we identified and evaluated those factors that
adversely impact the species and that may be common to all of the
species at the ecosystem level. For example, the degradation of habitat
by nonnative ungulates is considered a threat to all 15 species, and is
likely a threat to many, if not most or all, of the native species
within a given ecosystem. We consider such a threat factor to be an
``ecosystem-level threat,'' as each individual species within that
ecosystem faces a threat that is essentially identical in terms of the
nature of the impact, its severity, its timing, and its scope. Beyond
ecosystem-level threats, we further identified and evaluated threat
factors that may be unique to certain species and that do not apply to
all species under consideration within the same ecosystem. For example,
the threat of predation by nonnative wasps is unique to the picture-
wing fly Drosophila digressa, and is not applicable to any of the other
14 species. We have identified such threat factors, which apply only to
certain species within the ecosystems addressed here, as ``species-
specific threats.''
Please refer to the proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012)
for a description of the island of Hawaii and associated map, and for a
description of the 10 ecosystems on Hawaii Island that support the 15
species. We have made minor revisions to our description of the
anchialine pool ecosystem described in the proposed rule (77 FR 63928;
October 17, 2012); therefore, we have included the revised version in
its entirety in this final rule (see Hawaii Island Ecosystems, below).
Hawaii Island Ecosystems
There are 12 different ecosystems (anchialine pool, coastal,
lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic,
montane wet, subalpine, alpine, dry cliff, and wet cliff) recognized on
the island of Hawaii. The 15 species addressed in this final rule occur
in 10 of these 12 ecosystems (none of the 15 species are reported in
subalpine and alpine ecosystems). The 10 Hawaii Island ecosystems that
support the 15 species are described in the proposed rule (77 FR 63928;
October 17, 2012), with the exception of a revised description of the
anchialine pool ecosystem below; see Table 2 (above) for a list of the
species that occur in each ecosystem type.
Anchialine Pools
Anchialine pools are land-locked bodies of water that have indirect
underground connections to the sea, contain varying levels of salinity,
and show tidal fluctuations in water level. Anchialine pool habitats
can be distinguished from similar systems (i.e., tidal pools) in that
they are land-locked with no surface connections to water sources
either saline or fresh, but have subterranean hydrologic connections to
both fresh and ocean water where water flows through cracks and
crevices, and remain tidally influenced (Holthuis 1973, p. 3; Stock
1986, p. 91). Anchialine habitats are ecologically distinct and unique,
and while widely distributed throughout the world, they only occur in
the United States in the Hawaiian Islands (Brock 2004, pp. i, 2, and
12). In Hawaii, the anchialine pool ecosystem has been reported from
Oahu, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii Island. In the Hawaiian
Islands, there are estimated to be 600 to 700 anchialine pools, with
the majority occurring on the island of Hawaii (Brock 2004, p. i). Over
80 percent of the State's anchialine pools are found on the island of
Hawaii, with a total of approximately 520 to 560 pools distributed over
130 sites along all but the island's northernmost and steeper
northeastern shorelines. Characteristic animal species include
crustaceans (e.g., shrimps, prawns, amphipods, isopods, etc.), several
fish species, mollusks, and other invertebrates adapted to the pools'
surface and subterranean habitats (Brock 2004, p. i; The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) 2009, pp. 1-3). Generally, vegetation within the
anchialine pools consists of various types of algal forms (blue-green,
green, red, and golden-brown). The majority of Hawaii's anchialine
pools occur in bare or
[[Page 64641]]
sparsely vegetated lava fields, although some pools occur in areas with
various groundcover, shrub, and tree species (Chai et al. 1989, pp. 2-
24; Brock 2004, p. 35). The anchialine pool shrimp in this final rule,
Vetericaris chaceorum, occurs in this ecosystem (Kensley and Williams
1986, pp. 417-437).
Description of the 15 Species
Below is a brief description of each of the 15 species, presented
in alphabetical order by genus. Plants are presented first, followed by
animals.
Plants
In order to avoid confusion regarding the number of locations of
each species (a location does not necessarily represent a viable
population, as in some cases there may only be one or a very few
representatives of the species present), we use the word ``occurrence''
instead of ``population.'' Each occurrence is composed only of wild
(i.e., not propagated and outplanted) individuals.
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (kookoolau), a perennial
herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of
Hawaii (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 275-276). Historically, B.
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana was known from two locations along
the windward Kohala coastline, in the coastal and dry cliff ecosystems,
often along rocks just above the ocean (Degener and Wiebke 1926, in
litt.; Flynn 1988, in litt.). Currently, there are two known
occurrences of B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana totaling 40 or
fewer individuals along the windward Kohala coast, in the coastal and
dry cliff ecosystems. There are 30 individuals on the Pololu seacliffs,
and 5 to 10 individuals on the seacliffs between Pololu and Honokane
Nui (Perlman 1998, in litt.; Perlman 2006, in litt.). Biologists
speculate that this species may total as many as 100 individuals with
further surveys of potential habitat along the Kohala coast (Mitchell
et al. 2005b; PEPP 2006, p. 3).
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), a perennial herb in
the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii
(Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273). Historically, B. micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla was known from the north Kona district, in the lowland
dry ecosystem (HBMP 2010b). Currently, this subspecies is restricted to
an area of less than 10 square miles (sq mi) (26 square kilometers (sq
km)) on the leeward slopes of Hualalai volcano, in the lowland dry
ecosystem in 6 occurrences totaling fewer than 1,000 individuals. The
largest occurrence is found off Hina Lani Road with over 475
individuals widely dispersed throughout the area (Zimpfer 2011, in
litt.). Another occurrence at Kealakehe was reported to have been
abundant and common in 1992, but by 2010 had declined to low numbers
(Whister 2007, pp. 1-18; Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010b; Whister 2008,
pp. 1-11). In addition, there are three naturally occurring individuals
in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP) (Beavers 2010, in
litt.), and three occurrences within close proximity to each other to
the northeast of the park: Five individuals in an exclosure at
Puuwaawaa Wildlife Sanctuary (HBMP 2010b); a few scattered individuals
at Kaupulehu; and a few individuals on private land at Palani Ranch
(Whistler 2007, pp. 1-18; Whistler 2008, pp. 1-11). Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla has also been outplanted within Kaloko-Honokohau NHP
(49 individuals), Koaia Tree Sanctuary (1 individual), and Puuwaawaa (5
individuals) (Boston 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010b; Billings 2012, in
litt.).
Cyanea marksii (haha), a shrub in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is found only on the island of Hawaii. Historically,
C. marksii was known from the Kona district, in the lowland wet and
montane wet ecosystems (Lammers 1999, p. 457; HBMP 2010e). Currently,
there are 27 individuals distributed among 3 occurrences in south Kona,
in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems (PEPP 2007, p. 61). There
is an adult and 20 to 30 juveniles (each approximately 1 inch (in)
(2.54 centimeters (cm) tall)) in a lava tube in the Kona unit of the
Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (PEPP 2007, p. 61), 3 adult
individuals and 6 seedlings in the Kaohe pit crater in the South Kona
FR (Perry 2012, in litt.), and 25 individuals on private land in south
Kona (PEPP 2007, p. 61; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Fruit has been
collected from the individuals on private land, and 11 plants have been
successfully propagated at the Volcano Rare Plant Facility (VRPF) (PEPP
2007, p. 61; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Cyanea tritomantha (aku), a palmlike shrub in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is known only from the island of Hawaii (Pratt and
Abbott 1997, p. 13; Lammers 2004, p. 89). Historically, this species
was known from the windward slopes of Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Kilauea,
and the Kohala Mountains, in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet
cliff ecosystems (Pratt and Abbott 1997, p. 13). Currently, there are
16 occurrences of Cyanea tritomantha totaling fewer than 400
individuals in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems:
10 occurrences (totaling fewer than 240 individuals) in the Kohala
Mountains (Perlman 1993, in litt.; Perlman 1995a, in litt.; Perlman and
Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010f; PEPP 2010, p. 60); 2 occurrences
(totaling fewer than 75 individuals) in the Laupahoehoe Natural Area
Reserve (NAR) (HBMP 2010f; Bio 2011, pers. comm.); 1 occurrence (20
adults and 30 juveniles) at Puu Makaala NAR (Perlman and Bio 2008, in
litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.; HBMP 2010f; Bio 2011, pers. comm.); 1
occurrence with 10 to 20 individuals off Tom's Trail in the Upper
Waiakea Forest Reserve FR (Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.; Perry 2012,
in litt.); and 2 occurrences (totaling fewer than 11 individuals) in
Olaa Tract in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park HVNP (Pratt 2007a, in
litt.; Pratt 2008a, in litt.; Orlando 2012, in litt.). In 2003, over 75
individuals were outplanted in HVNP's Olaa Tract and Small Tract;
however, by 2010, less than one third of these individuals remained
(Pratt 2011a, in litt.). In addition, a few individuals have been
outplanted at Puu Makaala NAR and Upper Waiakea FR (Hawaii Department
of Land and Natural Resources (HDLNR) 2006; Belfield 2007, in litt.;
Agorastos 2010, in litt.). Cyanea tritomantha produces few seeds, and
their viability tends to be low (Moriyasu 2009, in litt.)
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (haiwale), a shrub or small tree in the
African violet family (Gesneriaceae), is known only from the island of
Hawaii (Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 29; Wagner et al. 2005a--Flora of
the Hawaiian Islands database). Historically, C. nanawaleensis was
known only from the Nanawale FR and the adjacent Malama Ki FR in the
Puna district, in the lowland wet ecosystem (St. John 1987, p. 500;
Wagner et al. 1988, in litt.; HBMP 2010g; Pratt 2011b, in litt.).
Currently, C. nanawaleensis is known from 5 occurrences with
approximately 160 individuals in the lowland wet ecosystem: 2
occurrences in Malama Ki FR totaling 70 individuals (Lau 2011, pers.
comm.); 1 occurrence in Keauohana FR (with 56 individuals) (Magnacca
2011a, in litt.); 2 occurrences in the Halepuaa section of Nanawale FR
(one with 28 mature and 65 immature plants at 200 feet (ft) (61 meters
(m)) elevation, and a second occurrence with 9 mature and 57 immature
plants at 270 ft (82 m)) (Johansen 2012, in litt.; Kobsa 2012, in
litt.; Perry 2012, in litt.); and 1 occurrence with an unknown number
of individuals on private lands in lower Puna (Perry 2012, in litt.). A
total of
[[Page 64642]]
approximately 56 individuals have been outplanted in Halepuaa and
Keauhana (Perry 2012, in litt.).
Cyrtandra wagneri (haiwale), a shrub or small tree in the African
violet family (Gesneriaceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii
(Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 357). Historically, C. wagneri was known
from a few individuals along the steep banks of the Kaiwilahilahi
Stream in the Laupahoehoe NAR, in the lowland wet ecosystem (Perlman et
al. 1998, in litt.). In 2002, there were 2 known occurrences totaling
fewer than 175 individuals in the Laupahoehoe NAR: One occurrence
(totaling 150 individuals (50 adults and 100 juveniles)) along the
steep banks of the Kilau Stream (Lorence et al. 2002, in litt.; Perlman
and Perry 2003, in litt.; Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 359), and a
second occurrence (with approximately 10 sterile individuals) along the
slopes of the Kaiwilahilahi stream banks (Lorence and Perlman 2007, p.
359). Currently, there are no individuals remaining at Kaiwilahilahi
Stream, and the individuals at Kilau Stream appear to be hybridizing
with the endangered Cyrtandra tintinnabula. Biologists have identified
only eight individuals at Kilau Stream that express the true phenotype
of Cyrtandra wagneri, and only three of these individuals are
reproducing successfully (PEPP 2010, p. 102; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Phyllostegia floribunda (NCN), a perennial herb in the mint family
(Lamiaceae), is found only on the island of Hawaii (Wagner 1999, p.
268; Wagner et al. 1999b, p. 815). Historically, P. floribunda was
reported in the lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems
at scattered sites along the slopes of the Kohala Mountains; southeast
through Hamakua, Laupahoehoe NAR, Waiakea FR, and Upper Waiakea FR; and
southward into Hilo, HVNP, and Puna. One report exists of the species
occurring from north Kona and a few occurrences in south Kona (Cuddihy
et al. 1982, in litt.; Wagner et al. 2005b--Flora of the Hawaiian
Islands database; Perlman et al. 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010h; Bishop
Museum 2011--Herbarium Database). Currently, there are 12 known
occurrences of P. floribunda totaling fewer than 100 individuals, in
the lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems (Bruegmann
1998, in litt.; Giffin 2009, in litt.; HBMP 2010h): 2 occurrences
within HVNP, at Kamoamoa (1 individual) (HBMP 2010h) and near Napau
Crater (4 individuals) (Pratt 2005, in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.;
HBMP 2010h); 1 occurrence behind the Volcano solid waste transfer
station (10 to 50 individuals) (Flynn 1984, in litt.; Perlman and Wood
1993--Hawaii Plant Conservation Maps database; Pratt 2007b, in litt.;
HBMP 2010h); 1 occurrence (with an unknown number individuals) in the
Wao Kele O Puna NAR (HBMP 2010h); 1 occurrence with 20 individuals in a
fenced exclosure in the Upper Waiakea FR (Perry 2012, in litt.); at
least 1 occurrence each (with a few individuals each) in the Puu
Makaala NAR, Waiakea FR, and TNC's Kona Hema Preserve (PR) (Perry 2006,
in litt.; Perlman 2007, in litt.; Giffin 2009, in litt.; PEPP 2008, pp.
106-107; Perlman et al. 2008, in litt.; Pratt 2008a, in litt.; Pratt
2008b, in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.); 2 occurrences (each with an
unknown number of individuals) from the South Kona FR; 1 occurrence
(one individual) in the Kipahoehoe NAR; and 1 occurrence (with an
unknown number of individuals) in the Lapauhoehoe NAR (Moriyasu 2009,
in litt.; HBMP 2010h; Agorastos 2010, in litt.). Since 2003, over 400
individuals have been outplanted at HVNP, Waiakea FR, Puu Makaala NAR,
Honomalino in TNC's Kona Hema PR, and Kipahoehoe NAR (Bruegmann 2006,
in litt.; HDLNR 2006, p. 38; Tangalin 2006, in litt.; Belfield 2007, in
litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.; VRPF 2008, in litt.; VRPF 2010, in litt.;
Bio 2008, in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.). However, for reasons
unknown, approximately 90 percent of the outplantings experience high
seedling mortality (Pratt 2007b, in litt.; Van DeMark et al. 2010, pp.
24-43).
Pittosporum hawaiiense (hoawa, haawa), a small tree in the
pittosporum family (Pittosporaceae), is known only from the island of
Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999c, p. 1,044). Historically, P. hawaiiense was
known from the leeward side of the island, from the Kohala Mountains
south to Kau, in the lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet
ecosystems (Wagner et al. 1999c, p. 1,044). Currently, there are 14
known occurrences totaling fewer than 175 individuals, from HVNP to Puu
O Umi NAR, and south Kona, in the lowland mesic, montane mesic, and
montane wet ecosystems: 1 occurrence in Puu O Umi NAR (several
scattered individuals) (Perlman 1995b, in litt.); 1 occurrence (with a
least one individual) in TNC's Kona Hema PR (Oppenheimer et al. 1998,
in litt.); 1 occurrence with 50 to 100 individuals at Kukuiopae in the
South Kona FR (Perlman and Perry 2002, in litt.; Perry 2012, in litt.);
1 occurrence (with a few individuals) in the Manuka NAR (Perry 2011, in
litt.); 8 occurrences (totaling fewer than 58 individuals) scattered
within the Kahuku unit of HVNP; 1 occurrence in the Olaa FR (at least
one individual), just adjacent to the Olaa Tract in HVNP; and 1
occurrence (with fewer than 6 individuals) at the Volcano solid waste
transfer station (Wood and Perlman 1991, in litt.; McDaniel 2011a, in
litt.; McDaniel 2011b, in litt.; Pratt 2011d, in litt.). Biologists
have observed very low regeneration in these occurrences, which is
believed to be caused, in part, by rat predation on the seeds (Bio
2011, pers. comm.).
Platydesma remyi (NCN), a shrub or shrubby tree in the rue family
(Rutaceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii (Stone et al. 1999, p.
1210; USFWS 2010, pp. 4-66--4-67, A-11, A-74). Historically, P. remyi
was known from a few scattered individuals on the windward slopes of
the Kohala Mountains and several small populations on the windward
slopes of Mauna Kea, in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems
(Stone et al. 1999, p. 1210; HBMP 2010i). Currently, P. remyi is known
from 8 occurrences totaling fewer than 40 individuals, all of which are
found in the Laupahoehoe NAR or in closely surrounding areas, in the
lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems: Along the banks of
Kaiwilahilahi Stream in the Laupahoehoe NAR (unknown number of
individuals) (Perlman and Perry 2001, in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.;
HBMP 2010i); near the Spencer Hunter Trail in the Laupahoehoe NAR
(fewer than 17 individuals) (PEPP 2010, p. 102); in the central part of
the Laupahoehoe NAR (5 to 6 scattered individuals) (HBMP 2010i); near
Kilau (1 to 3 individuals) and Pahale (1 to 3 individuals) Streams in
Laupahoehoe NAR; in the southeastern region of Laupahoehoe NAR (1
individual); in the Hakalau unit of the Hakalau NWR (1 individual)
(USFWS 2010, p. 4-74--4-75); and in the Humuula region of the Hilo FR
(2 individuals) (Bruegmann 1998, in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; PEPP
2008, p. 107; HBMP 2010i). According to field biologists, this species
appears to be declining with no regeneration believed to be caused, in
part, by rat predation on the seeds (Bio 2011, pers. comm.). In 2009,
29 individuals of P. remyi were outplanted in Laupahoehoe NAR (Bio
2008, in litt.). Their current status is unknown.
Pritchardia lanigera (loulu), a medium-sized tree in the palm
family (Arecaceae), is found only on the island of Hawaii (Read and
Hodel 1999, p. 1,371; Hodel 2007, pp. 10, 24-25). Historically, P.
lanigera was known from the Kohala Mountains, Hamakua district,
windward slopes of Mauna Kea,
[[Page 64643]]
and southern slopes of Mauna Loa, in the lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems (Read and Hodel 1999, p. 1,371;
HBMP 2010c). Currently, P. lanigera is known from 8 occurrences
totaling fewer than 230 individuals scattered along the windward side
of the Kohala Mountains, Kau FR, and TNC Kau Preserve, in the lowland
mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems.
Approximately 100 to 200 individuals are scattered over 1 sq mi (3 sq
km) in Waimanu Valley and surrounding areas (Wood 1995, in litt.;
Perlman and Wood 1996, p. 6; Wood 1998, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2004,
in litt.; HBMP 2010c). There are at least five individuals in the back
rim of Alakahi Gulch in Waipio Valley (HBMP 2010c), and five
individuals in the Kau FR (Perry 2013, in litt.) According to field
biologists, pollination rates appear to be low for this species, and
the absence of seedlings and juveniles at known locations suggests that
regeneration is not occurring, which they believe to be caused, in
part, by beetle, rat, and pig predation on the fruits, seeds, and
seedlings (Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Crysdale 2013, pers. comm.).
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei (NCN), a perennial climbing herb in
the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is reported only from the island of
Hawaii (Wagner et al. 2005c--Flowering Plants of the Hawaiian Islands
database; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106). Historically, S. diffusa ssp.
macraei was known from the Kohala Mountains, the windward slopes of
Mauna Loa, and the Olaa Tract of HVNP, in the montane wet ecosystem
(Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106; HBMP
2010j). Currently, there is one individual of S. diffusa ssp. macraei
on the slopes of Eke in the Kohala Mountains, in the montane wet
ecosystem (Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Schiedea hawaiiensis (NCN), a perennial herb or subshrub in the
pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is known only from the island of Hawaii
(Wagner et al. 2005d, pp. 92-96). Historically, S. hawaiiensis was
known from a single collection by Hillebrand (1888, p. 33) from the
Waimea region, in the montane dry ecosystem (Wagner et al. 2005d, pp.
92-96). Currently, S. hawaiiensis is known from 25 to 40 individuals on
the U.S. Army's Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) in the montane dry
ecosystem, in the saddle area between Moana Loa and Mauna Kea (Gon III
and Tierney 1996 in Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 92; Wagner et al. 2005d, p.
92; Evans 2011, in litt.). In addition, there are over 150 individuals
outplanted at PTA (Kipuka Alala and Kalawamauna), Puu Huluhulu, Puu
Waawaa, and Kipuka Oweowe (Evans 2011, in litt.).
Stenogyne cranwelliae (NCN), a vine in the mint family (Lamiaceae),
is known only from the island of Hawaii. Historically, S. cranwelliae
was known from the Kohala Mountains, in the montane wet and wet cliff
ecosystems (Weller and Sakai 1999, p. 837). Currently, there are 6
occurrences of S. cranwelliae totaling fewer than 160 individuals in
the Kohala Mountains, in the montane wet and wet cliff ecosystems:
Roughly 1.5 sq mi (2.5 sq km) around the border between the Puu O Umi
NAR and Kohala FR, near streams and bogs (ranging from 3 to 100
scattered individuals) (Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k);
Opaeloa, in the Puu O Umi NAR (3 individuals) (Perlman and Wood 1996,
pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); Puukapu, in the Puu O Umi NAR (6-by-6-ft (2-by-
2-m) ``patch'' of individuals) (HBMP 2010k); the rim of Kawainui Gulch
(1 individual) (Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); along
Kohakohau Stream, in the Puu O Umi NAR (a few individuals) (Perlman and
Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); and Waimanu Bog Unit in the Puu O Umi
NAR (a ``patch'' of individuals) (Agorastos 2010, in litt.)
Animals
Drosophila digressa (picture-wing fly), a member of the family
Drosophilidae, was described in 1968 by Hardy and Kaneshiro and is
found only on the island of Hawaii (Hardy and Kaneshiro 1968, pp. 180-
1882; Carson 1986, p. 3-9). This species is small, with adults ranging
in size from 0.15 to 0.19 in (4.0 to 5.0 mm) in length. Adults are
brownish yellow in color and have yellow-colored legs and hyaline
(shiny-clear) wings with prominent brown spots. Breeding generally
occurs year round, but egg laying and larval development increase
following the rainy season as the availability of decaying matter,
which picture-wing flies feed on, increases in response to heavy rains.
In contrast to most continental Drosophilidae, many endemic Hawaiian
species are highly host-plant-specific (Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 1).
Drosophila digressa relies on the decaying stems of Charpentiera spp.
and Pisonia spp. for oviposition (to deposit or lay eggs) and larval
substrate (Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 11, 13; Magnacca 2013, in litt.).
The larvae complete development in the decaying tissue before dropping
to the soil to pupate (Montgomery 1975, pp. 65-103; Spieth 1986, p.
105). Pupae develop into adults in approximately 1 month, and adults
sexually mature 1 month later. Adults live for 1 to 2 months. The adult
flies are generalist microbivores (microbe eating) and feed upon a
variety of decomposing plant material. Drosophila digressa occurs in
elevations ranging from approximately 2,000 to 4,500 ft (610 to 1,370
m), in the lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems
(Magnacca 2011a, pers. comm.). Historically, D. digressa was known from
six sites: Moanuiahea pit crater on Hualalai, Papa in South Kona,
Manuka FR, Kipuka 9 along Saddle Road, Bird Park in HVNP, and Olaa FR
(Montgomery 1975, p. 98; Magnacca 2006, pers. comm.; HBMP 2010d;
Magnacca 2011b, in litt.; Kaneshiro 2013, in litt.). Currently, D.
digressa is known from only two locations, one population in the Manuka
NAR within the Manuka FR, in the lowland mesic and montane mesic
ecosystems, and a second population in the Olaa FR in the montane wet
ecosystem (Magnacca 2011b, in litt.). The current number of individuals
at each of these locations is unknown (Magnacca 2011b, in. litt.).
Vetericaris chaceorum (anchialine pool shrimp) is a member of the
family Procarididae, and is considered one of the most primitive shrimp
species in the world (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 428-429).
Currently known from only two locations on the island of Hawaii, V.
chaceorum is one of seven described species of hypogeal (underground)
shrimp found in the Hawaiian Islands that occur in anchialine pools
(Brock 2004, p. 6). Relatively large in size for a hypogeal shrimp
species, adult Vetericaris chaceorum measure approximately 2.0 in (5.0
cm) in total body length, excluding the primary antennae, which are
approximately the same length as the adult's body length (Kensley and
Williams 1986, p. 419). The species lacks large chelapeds (claws)
(Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 426), which are a key diagnostic
characteristic of all other known shrimp species. V. chaceorum is
largely devoid of pigment and lacks eyes, although eyestalks are
present (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 419). Observations of
Vetericaris chaceorum indicate the species is a strong swimmer and
propels its body forward in an upright manner with its appendages held
in a basket formation below the body. Forward movement is produced by a
rhythmic movement of the thoracic and abdominal appendages, and during
capture of some specimens, V. chaceorum escape tactics included only
forward movement and a notable lack of tail flicking, which would allow
backward movement and which is common to other shrimp species
[[Page 64644]]
(Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 426). No response was observed when the
species was exposed to light (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418).
The feeding habits of Vetericaris chaceorum were unknown for
decades with the only published data from Kensley and Williams (1986,
p. 426), who reported that the gut contents of a captured specimen
included large quantities of an orange-colored oil and fragments of
other crustaceans, indicating that the species may be carnivorous upon
its associated anchialine pool shrimp species. Sakihara (2012, in
litt.) recently confirmed that V. chaceorum is carnivorous after
observing V. chaceorum collected from Manuaka Natural Area Reserve
actively feeding on Halocaridina rubra in the laboratory. In general,
hypogeal shrimp occur within both the illuminated part of their
anchialine pool habitat as well as within the cracks and crevices in
the water table below the surface (Brock 2004, p. 6). The relative
abundance of some Hawaii species is directly tied to food abundance
(Brock 2004, p. 10). The lighted environment of anchialine pools offers
refugia of high benthic productivity, resulting in higher population
levels for the shrimp compared to the surrounding interstitial spaces
often occupied by these species, albeit in lower numbers (Brock 2004,
p. 10; Wada 2013, pers. comm.).
Although over 400 of the estimated 520 to 560 anchialine pool
habitats have been surveyed on the island of Hawaii, Vetericaris
chaceorum has only been documented from two locations: Lua o Palahemo,
which is a submerged lava tube located on the southernmost point of
Hawaii Island in an area known as Ka Lae (South Point) (Kensley and
Williams 1986, pp. 417-418; Brock 2004, p. 2; HBMP 2010), and at
Manuka, where only recently V. chaceorum was discovered in a series of
pristine shallow anchialine pool complexes within and adjacent to the
NAR, approximately 15 mi (25 km) northwest of Lua o Palahemo (Sakihara
2012, in litt.). The Service has concluded that the lack of detection
of this species in the several hundred anchialine pools surveyed on the
island of Hawaii since the 1970s suggests this species has a very
limited range (Holthius 1973, pp. 1-128 cited in Sakihara 2012, pp. 83,
91, and 93; Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp. 1-73; Maciolek 1983, pp. 606-
618; Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-426; Maciolek 1987, pp. 1-23;
Chai et al. 1989, pp. 1-37; Chan 1995, pp. 1-31; Brock and Kam 1997,
pp. 1-109; Bozanic 2004, p. 1; Brock 2004, pp. 1-60; Sakihara 2009, pp.
1-35; Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95; Wada 2012, pers. comm.; Wada et al.
2012, pp. 1-2; Sakihara 2013 in litt.). In total, only five individuals
have been observed during one survey period in 1985 at Lua o Palahmo,
and a total of seven individuals were observed in four pools during
surveys conducted between 2009 and 2010 at Manuka. These two locations
are described below.
Lua o Palahemo Site: Age estimates for Lua o Palahemo range from as
young as 11,780 years to a maximum of age of 25,000 years, based upon
radio carbon data and timing of geophysical climatic events (Kensley
and Williams 1986, pp. 417-418). Brock (2004, p. 18) states this lava
tube is probably the second most important anchialine pool habitat in
the State because of its unique connection to the ocean, the vertical
size (i.e., depth), and the presence of a total of five different
species including Halocaridina palahemo, H. rubra, Procaris hawaiiana,
Calliasmata pholidota, and Vetericaris chaceorum. Lua o Palahemo is a
naturally occurring opening (i.e., a surface collapse) into a large
lava tube below. The opening measures approximately 33 ft (10 m) in
diameter and is exposed to sunlight. Unlike most anchialine pools in
the Hawaiian Islands, which have depths less than 4.9 ft (1.5 m) (Brock
2004, p. 3), Lua o Palahemo's deep pool includes a deep shaft with
vertical sides extending downward about 46 ft (14 m) into the lava tube
below, which branches in two directions, both ending in blockages
(Holthuis 1974, p. 11; Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418). At the
subterranean level at the base of the opening, the lava tube runs
generally north and south, extending northward for 282 ft (86 m) and
southward for 718 ft (219 m), to a depth of 108 ft (33 m) below sea
level (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418).
Manuka Site: The anchialine pools at Manuka were first surveyed
1972 (Macioleck and Brock 1972, p. iii); however, this survey primarily
covered only the southern extremity of the site. A more thorough survey
of the Manuka coastline was conducted between 1989 and 1992 (20 pools
along the southern coast of Manuka, which included both diurnal and
nocturnal observations (Chan 1995, p. 1). These pools were then
diurnally surveyed in 2004 (80 pools along the entire Manuka coastline)
(Brock 2004, pp. 1-60), and again between 2008 and 2009 (80 pools along
the entire Manuka coastline) (Sakihara 2009, pp. 1-35). The most recent
and most comprehensive surveys of Manuka were conducted between 2009
and 2010, when Hawaii State biologists surveyed 81 pools at Manuka both
day and night, which resulted in the discovery of Vetericaris chaceorum
in 4 of the pools surveyed. Three of the pools are within Manuka NAR,
and one pool is adjacent to the NAR, on unencumbered State land
(collectively referred to as Manuka throughout this final rule)
(Sakihara 2013, in litt.). This discovery documents the first
observation of this species in almost three decades (Sakihara 2012, in
litt.). Visual accounts made by the biologists estimate that V.
chaceorum is established in four anchialine pools along the southern
section of the NAR, approximately 15 mi (25 km) from Lua o Palahemo. A
total of seven individuals of this species were observed in four pools
around Awili Point and Keawaiki (Sakihara 2012, p. 89; Sakihara 2013,
in litt.), although estimates of the total number of individuals are
undeterminable due to the cryptic nature of this species (Sakihara
2012, in litt.). Sakihara (2012, in litt.) stated that the anchialine
habitat at Manuka is considerably different than that of Lua o
Palahemo, and is considered to be one of the most biologically valuable
habitats of this type (Sakihara 2012, in litt.; Sakihara 2013, in
litt.). The Manuka anchialine pools are characterized by shallow (less
than 2 ft (0.5 m)) open pools dispersed throughout barren basaltic
terrain. This observation expands the known habitat conditions that
support V. chaceorum (Sakihara 2012, in litt.). According to Sakihara
(2013, in litt.), it appears that three of the Manuka pools (the three
pools closest to a jeep road) have a subterranean connection, although
this has not been confirmed. Although anchialine pools have been
surveyed in the Manuka area in the past (Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp.
1-80; Chan 1995, pp. 1-34; Brock 2004, pp. i-iv; Sakihara 2009, pp. 1-
35; Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95; Sakihara 2013 in litt.), the surveys
conducted between 2009 and 2010 were the first to document the presence
of V. chaceorum in this anchialine pool complex. In 1995, an anchialine
pool shrimp matching the description of V. chaceorum was observed in at
least one pool at Manuka NAR, but its identification was never
confirmed (Brock 2004, p. 31; Sakihara 2012, p. 89).
Four surveys have been conducted at Lua o Palahemo (Maciolek and
Brock 1974, pp. 1-73; Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-426; Bozanic
2004, p. 1-3; Wada 2012, pers. comm.; Wada et al. 2012, pp. 1-2), with
five individuals observed during one survey in 1985. Five surveys have
been conducted at Manuka (Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp.
[[Page 64645]]
1-73; Chan 1995, pp. 1-34; Brock 2004, pp. i-iv, 1-60; Sakihara 2009,
pp. 1-35; Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95; Sakihara 2013 in litt.), with seven
individuals observed in four pools between 2009 and 2010. Because of
the ability of hypogeal shrimp species to inhabit the interstitial and
crevicular spaces in the water table bedrock surrounding anchialine
pools, it is very difficult to estimate population size of a given
species within a given area (Brock 2004, pp. 10-11). We are unable to
estimate the population size of either occurrence of Vetericaris
chaceorum given this behavior.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
On October 17, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list 15 Hawaii
Island species (13 plants, 1 picture-wing fly, and 1 anchialine pool
shrimp) as endangered throughout their ranges, and to designate
critical habitat for 3 plant species (77 FR 63928). The comment period
for the proposal opened on October 17, 2012, for 60 days, ending on
December 17, 2012. We requested that all interested parties submit
comments or information concerning the proposed rule. We contacted all
appropriate State and Federal agencies, county governments, elected
officials, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment. In addition, we published a public notice of
the proposed rule on October 20, 2012, in the local Honolulu Star
Advertiser, West Hawaii Today, and the Hawaii Tribune Herald
newspapers, at the beginning of the comment period. We received four
requests for public hearings. On April 30, 2013, we published a
document (78 FR 25243) reopening the comment period on the October 17,
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), announcing the availability of our
draft economic analysis (DEA) on the proposed critical habitat, and
requesting comments on both the proposed rule and the DEA. In addition,
in that same document (78 FR 25243; April 30, 2013), we announced a
public information meeting and hearing, which was held in Kailua-Kona,
Hawaii, on May 15, 2013.
During the comment periods, we received 33 comment letters,
including the 11 peer review comment letters, on the proposed listing
of 15 species, proposed taxonomic change for 1 endangered plant
species, and proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final
rule, we address only the comments regarding the proposed listing of 15
species and proposed taxonomic change for 1 plant species. Comments
addressing the proposed critical habitat designation will be fully
addressed in a separate rulemaking action, and published in the Federal
Register at a later date.
Two commenters were State of Hawaii agencies ((1) Hawaii Department
of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism's Hawaii Housing Finance
and Development Corporation, and (2) Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands); one was a county agency (County of Hawaii Planning Department);
two were Federal agencies; and 28 were nongovernmental organizations or
individuals. During the May 15, 2013, public hearing, no individuals or
organizations made comments on the proposed listing.
All substantive information related to the listing of the 15
species or the taxonomic change for 1 species provided during the
comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final
determination or is addressed below. Comments received were grouped
into general issues specifically relating to the proposed listing
status of the 13 plants, or the picture-wing fly or anchialine pool
shrimp, or the proposed taxonomic change for 1 plant species, and are
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule
as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions
from 14 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise on the
Hawaii Island plants, picture-wing fly, and anchialine pool shrimp, and
their habitats, including familiarity with the species, the geographic
region in which these species occur, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from 11 of these peer reviewers. Nine
of these 11 peer reviewers generally supported our methodology and
conclusions. One peer reviewer expressed concern regarding the lack of
more recent survey data for the anchialine pool shrimp at Manuka, and
was unaware of the recent surveys (between 2009 and 2010) conducted by
Hawaii State biologists. Another commented that we should proceed with
caution due to the lack of biological information regarding the shrimp.
Three peer reviewers supported the Service's ecosystem-based approach
for organizing the rule and for focusing on the actions needed for
species conservation and management, and all 11 reviewers provided
information on one or more of the Hawaii Island species, which was
incorporated into this final rule (see also Summary of Changes from
Proposed Rule). We reviewed all comments received from the peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the
listing of 15 species and taxonomic change for 1 plant species. Peer
reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review Comments on Plants
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we include
inundation by high surf and subsequent erosion, and the nonnative plant
Wedelia [Sphagneticola] trilobata (wedelia), as threats to the plant
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana.
Our Response: We have incorporated this information, as
appropriate, into Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, Table 3, and
in the sections ``Nonnative Plants in the Coastal Ecosystem'' and
``Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls,
Landslides, Heavy Rain, Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought''
under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range in this final rule (see below).
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we include
vandalism and trash dumping as threats to the plant Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla, in the Kaloko Makai area.
Our Response: We are aware that vandalism and trash dumping has
occurred in the Kaloko Makai area near the individuals of Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla in the past, although it has not been
recently observed (Ball 2013, pers. comm.). We will continue to monitor
this potential threat in that area.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer informed us of an act of vandalism
where approximately 150 ft (46 m) of fencing was removed from a fenced
exclosure in the Upper Waiakea FR where individuals of the plant
Phyllostegia floribunda are found. The fencing was repaired later in
the same month (November 2012), and the plants appeared to suffer no
adverse impacts.
Our Response: We agree that vandalism is a potential threat to all
fenced species. However, vandalism is not considered an imminent threat
at this time because the frequency at which vandalism occurs and the
degree of impact cannot be determined in advance of the incident
occurring. We will continue to monitor the area and gather information
on this potential threat.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we identify the
nonnative plant Paederia foetida (skunk weed) as a threat to the plant
Cyrtandra
[[Page 64646]]
nanawaleensis because it completely covers and smothers understory
vegetation and outcompetes low-growing plants and small shrubs for
light and space and that we identify Psidium cattleianum (strawberry
guava) as a threat to Cyanea tritomantha because it forms dense stands
in which few other plants can grow, displacing native vegetation
through competition.
Our Response: We have included this information in this final rule
(see Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, below).
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer supported the listing of the plants
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, S. hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne
cranwelliae as endangered, and stated that we did a very thorough job
of outlining the threats for these three species. In addition, this
peer reviewer expressed appreciation for our emphasis on the
anticipated effects of climate change in the proposed rule.
Our Response: We appreciate the support from this peer reviewer
regarding our threats analysis, and our discussion on the anticipated
threats from climate change. All 15 species we are listing in this
final rule may be especially vulnerable to the effects of climate
change due to their small number of populations and individuals, as
well as highly restricted ranges. Environmental changes that may affect
these species are expected to include habitat loss or alteration and
changes in disturbance regimes (e.g., storms, hurricanes, and drought).
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that climate change appears
to be having especially serious effects on Schiedea species occurring
in dry habitats due to death of adult plants, presumably through
drought, failure to regenerate due to drought, and increased fire
frequency. Drought may have a pronounced effect on Schiedea
hawaiiensis.
Our Response: We agree that drought is a threat to Schiedea
hawaiiensis, for the reasons mentioned above (see also ``Habitat
Destruction and Modification by Fire'' and ``Habitat Destruction and
Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides, Heavy Rain,
Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought'' under Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range, below).
(7) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that Schiedea diffusa ssp.
macraei and S. hawaiiensis are obligate autogamous species (i.e.,
reproduces by self-pollination) and facultative autogamous (i.e.,
reproduces by self- and cross-pollination), respectively. Because both
of these species are hermaphroditic and autogamous, they are capable of
regenerating from single individuals, and may not be severely hampered
by inbreeding depression. Unfortunately, autogamous species of Schiedea
also appear to be short-lived, emphasizing the importance of
appropriate conditions for regeneration.
Our Response: We agree that the obligate and facultative autogamous
nature of Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei and S. hawaiiensis,
respectively, in addition to being hermaphroditic, afford these species
the ability to regenerate from single individuals and may not be
severely hampered by inbreeding depression. However, there are other
negative impacts that can result from low number of individuals (e.g.,
random demographic fluctuations; climate change effects; and localized
catastrophes, such as hurricanes, drought, rockfalls, landslides, and
disease outbreaks (Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757; Mangel and Tier 1994, p.
607). Any of these stressors represent threats that can lessen the
chances of survival for these species in the wild. We agree that the
short-lived nature of these species increases the importance for
appropriate conditions for regeneration, and have added this
information to our files.
(8) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that it was incorrect to
state, in our proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012) on page
63931, that Mezoneuron was listed in error as Caesalpinia kavaiense in
50 CFR 17.12, because at the time of the listing (51 FR 24672; July 8,
1986), this was the accepted name applied to the taxon. The peer
reviewer stated that it is important to emphasize that names of taxa
typically may change during the course of standard taxonomic
investigations, and these changes do not affect the validity of
conservation concerns for the taxon in question.
Our Response: We wish to clarify the error described in the October
17, 2012 (77 FR 63928), proposed rule regarding Mezoneuron kavaiense.
The error described in the proposed rule refers to the entry in the
1989 List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12), where
this taxon was revised and the specific epithet was misspelled as
Caesalpinia kavaiense (instead of Caesalpinia kavaiensis). Subsequent
taxonomic revision resulted in the currently recognized scientific name
for the listed entity, Mezoneuron kavaiense, which we accept in this
final rule.
(9) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that under our
description of the lowland dry ecosystem, we incorrectly wrote ``high
rates of diversity and endemism'' when technically it should read
``high levels of diversity and endemism,'' as rate is a process
occurring over time.
Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer.
Peer Review Comments on the Picture-Wing Fly
(10) Comment: One peer reviewer provided additional information
regarding the host plants for Drosophila digressa. Although D. digressa
has only been reared from Charpentiera spp., at Manuka, D. digressa was
found in a Pisonia sandwicensis treefall with a considerable number of
rotten branches. A large number of individuals of D. digressa were
found in a small area, indicating a local breeding group rather than
vagrant individuals. The only Charpentiera spp. in this area are a few
trees in a pit crater, over 0.62 mi (1 km) from the known location of
D. digressa on Pisonia sandwicensis. This reviewer further stated that
many native Drosophila species that breed in either Charpentiera spp.
or Pisonia spp. are also able to use both plants. According to the
reviewer, while this ability of D. digressa to use both tree species as
host plants expands its potential habitat slightly, it does not do so
by a great deal, as Pisonia sandwicensis and P. brunoniana [two of the
three species of Pisonia on Hawaii Island] are only found on Hawaii
Island at the sites where D. digressa is already known (Olaa and
Manuka), or where the forest is currently too open and dry to support
this species of picture-wing fly (Kipuka Pualulu and Puu Waawaa cone).
Pisonia umbellifera can be found at lower elevations on the windward
side of the island, such as gulches on the east slopes of Kohala and
Mauna Kea below 1,500 ft (457) m, but D. digressa has never been
recorded from these areas or elevation. Species of Pisonia face most of
the same threats as species of Charpentiera (i.e., goat and cattle
browsing of leaves and seedlings, pig rooting of seedlings, and
desiccation of habitat from drought and subsequent fires at Manuka).
The reviewer concludes that even if Pisonia spp. at Manuka survive the
[ongoing] drought, the habitat will likely be too dry to support D.
digressa.
Our Response: We appreciate this information regarding Drosophila
digressa and have incorporated this new information, as appropriate, in
this final rule (see above, Description of the 15 Species; see below,
Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, ``Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Introduced Ungulates'' (Factor A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or
Range), ``Predation and Herbivory''
[[Page 64647]]
(Factor C. Disease or Predation), and ``Loss of Host Plants'' (Factor
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence)).
(11) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the drought-associated
ohia [Metrosideros polymorpha] dieback occurring at Manuka adversely
affects Drosophila digressa by allowing more sunlight into the
understory, increasing the temperature and lowering humidity. This
increases the stress on the picture-wing flies and their host plants,
as well as increasing opportunities for invasive plants to become
established. The extraordinary amount of dead wood accumulation at
Manuka means that any fire that occurs there likely would be extremely
damaging. A fire resulting from a similar scenario at Kealakekua Ranch
a year or two ago produced smoke that covered most of the island and
burned for weeks because it is nearly impossible to fight fire in such
dense brush.
Our Response: We appreciate the additional information provided
regarding the drought-associated ohia dieback at Manuka and Drosophila
digressa, and we have included this new information in our final rule,
as appropriate, in ``Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to
Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides, Heavy Rain, Inundation by High Surf,
Erosion, and Drought'' (Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range) in this
final rule (see below).
Peer Review Comments on the Anchialine Pool Shrimp
(12) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the field surveys
cited in our proposed rule are not adequate, and that more surveys
should be conducted at other sites such as Manuka, Hawaii. The peer
reviewer also recommended that the analysis of listing Vetericaris
chaceorum as endangered should be based on the number of field surveys
conducted, the number of pools surveyed, the number of locations
surveyed, trapping surveys, day and night surveys, and seasonal
surveys.
Our Response: We are required to make listing determinations solely
on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, and,
for the reasons described here, we have concluded that the number and
locations of surveys are adequate to determine that Vetericaris
chaceorum appears to be restricted to a limited number of pools in the
southern portion of the island of Hawaii, and that V. chaceorum faces
threats from habitat degradation and destruction and from predation
such that it is in danger of extinction throughout its range. There are
between 600 and 700 anchialine pools in the Hawaiian Islands and
approximately 80 percent (approximately 520 to 560) occur on Hawaii
Island. Over 400 pools have been surveyed on Hawaii Island alone since
the 1970s, and V. chaceorum has only been documented from two
locations: Lua o Palahemo and Manuka, where V. chaceorum was recently
(between 2009 and 2010) discovered in a series of pristine shallow
anchialine pool complexes within and adjacent to Manuka NAR (Holthius
1973, pp. 1-128 cited in Sakihara 2012, pp. 83, 91, and 93; Maciolek
and Brock 1974, pp. 1-73; Maciolek 1983, pp. 606-618; Maciolek 1987,
pp. 1-23; Chai et al. 1989, pp. 1-37; Chan 1995, pp. 1-31; Brock and
Kam 1997, pp. 1-109; Brock 2004, pp. 1-60; Sakihara 2009, pp. 1-35;
Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95; Wada et al. 2012, pp. 1-2). This reviewer was
apparently unaware that Hawaii State biologists conducted surveys at
Manuka between 2008 and 2009, and again between 2009 and 2010 (Sakihara
2009, pp. 1-35; Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95). Several other peer reviewers
stated that the Service used the best available scientific and
commercial data to document the presence or absence of V. chaceorum in
anchialine pools around Hawaii Island.
Under the Act, we determine whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of five factors (see
Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below), and we are
required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available, pursuant to section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Based on the best available information we
determined that V. chaceorum faces threats from habitat destruction and
modification by feral goats and cattle at Lua o Palahemo; dumping of
trash and introduction of nonnative fish at Lua o Palahemo; and
introduction of nonnative fish at the pools at Manuka (see Summary of
Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below).
(13) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the importance of
flushing to the functioning of the anchialine pool ecosystem and its
relationship to the effects of excessive siltation and sedimentation on
the population of Vetericaris chaceorum and its associated species and
the anchialine pool ecosystem at Lua o Palahemo. The commenter
referenced the occurrence of large numbers of individuals of
Halocaridina rubra, Procaris hawaiiana, and V. chaceorum during the
1985 survey (Kensley and Williams 1985, pp. 417-426) despite a
reduction in visibility (few centimeters) as a result of the
disturbance of ceiling sediments caused by exhalation bubbles during an
exit phase of a dive. The commenter also stated that ``there is no
reason to discount the opposite idea that increased flushing has
mobilized the sediment, allowed the movement of native predators and
competitors into the system, and resulted in the decline or perhaps
extirpation of Vetericaris.'' The commenter then suggested that the
thick sediment cone just below the opening was not a problem for the
dense populations of native species detected directly beneath the
surface of the pool during the 1985 surveys.
Our Response: We acknowledge the peer reviewer's statement that
Vetericaris chaceorum and other native species may be able to coexist
with a certain level sedimentation in the anchialine pool ecosystem at
Lua o Palahemo. However, the water clarity has declined since earlier
surveys (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-437; Bozanic 2004, pp. 1-3;
Wada 2010, in litt.; Wada et al. 2012, in litt.; Wada 2012, pers.
comm.; Wada 2013, in litt.), which took place in the 1970s and 1980s,
despite the presence of silt in the system at that time. Further, we
disagree that the reduced visibility created by a diver's exhalation
bubbles or similar human-initiated disturbance during those early
surveys is comparable to the low visibility levels apparent in recent
surveys before surveyors even enter the water. Flushing is necessary
for the successful functioning of an anchialine pool ecosystem (Brock
2004, pp. 11, 35-36). We have concluded that continued excessive
siltation into and additional collapse of the lava tube system at Lua o
Palahemo is causing degradation of the anchialine pool ecosystem. These
factors, combined with the system's diminished ability to flush, have
resulted in the degradation of water quality, which has also led to the
drastic decline in two of the other hypogeal shrimp species within the
pool (i.e., Procaris hawaiiana numbered in the thousands, and
Halocaridina numbered in the tens of thousands (Kensley and Williams
1986, p. 418), and the most recent survey counted 7 Procaris hawaiiana
and zero Halocaridina (Wada et al. 2012, in litt.; Wada 2013, pers.
comm.)). These shrimp are considered food sources for V. chaceorum, and
their decline may affect the survival of V. chaceorum.
(14) Comment: One peer reviewer requested that the discussion of
Lua o Palahemo clarify land ownership and the attitude of the landowner
toward the anchialine pool and its fauna.
Our Response: Lua o Palahemo is located on land owned by the State
of
[[Page 64648]]
Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL). We hope to work with
DHHL to address the threats to Vetericaris chaceorum and the anchialine
pool ecosystem at Lua o Palahemo from ungulates, recreational vehicles,
dumping of trash, the intentional introduction of nonnative fish, and
sedimentation, as identified in this final rule.
(15) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that additional data on
phylogenetic or biogeographical relationships on the ancestor(s) to
Vetericaris chaceorum could have very important implications about the
spatial extent of potential habitat, specific features of the habitat
that may be critical to the species, and other possible sites where the
species may occur. However, the peer reviewer also stated that this
information is not currently available.
Our Response: We agree that such information would provide
additional insights on the species' distribution and range, as well as
the physical and biological habitat features required for the
conservation of Vetericaris chaceorum. However, as the peer reviewer
noted, such information is not currently available. The documented
observation of V. chaceorum less than 19 mi (25 km) from Lua o Palahemo
in the shallow water pools at Manuka, Hawaii, may be explained by
Maciolek's (1983, p. 615) hypothesis that habitats may be colonized
from long-existing subterranean populations.
(16) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we add nonnative
plants (e.g., Prosopis pallida (kiawe)) as a threat to the anchialine
pool shrimp Vetericaris chaceorum, as any nonnative canopy or
peripheral vegetation may result in changes in anchialine habitat
conditions such as increased senescence, changes in water quality, and
potential increases in nutrient availability that may alter primary
production and the community structure of the algae. This peer reviewer
further stated that these impacts may primarily affect the predominant
endemic faunal species Halocaridina rubra, which is considered to be a
key species in maintaining the ecological integrity of the anchialine
pools, and that this may ultimately lead to an overall degradation of
the anchialine pool ecosystem, and therefore impact V. chaceorum.
However, this peer reviewer also noted that both Lua o Palahemo and
Manuka are either very sparse or entirely free of peripheral
vegetation, but that this does not preclude the possibility of P.
pallida or any other type of nonnative vegetation from establishing
itself within these areas.
Our Response: The Act and our regulations direct us to consider the
``present'' or ``threatened'' destruction, modification, or curtailment
of the species' habitat or range. At this time, there are insufficient
data to determine the impacts on Vetericaris chaceorum from nonnative
plants such as Prosopis pallida. Therefore, we cannot address nonnative
plants as threats to V. chaceorum (i.e., we cannot identify a future
condition that may or may not occur as a threat) in this final rule. We
will consider the need to address nonnative plants in our future
recovery planning efforts for this species, should new information
become available indicating nonnative plants are a threat to V.
chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo or Manuka.
(17) Comment: Two peer reviewers suggested that we add native
marine fish species (e.g., aholehole (Kuhlia sp.) or papio (Caranx
sp.)) not normally found in anchialine pools as a threat to Vetericaris
chaceorum, from either natural events (e.g., high surf and storm
surges) or deliberate introduction by people to the Lua o Palahemo
anchialine pool ecosystem. According to these reviewers, the
introduction of native marine fish in anchialine pools could result in
the same deleterious impacts to V. chaceorum and its pool habitat as
the intentional introduction of nonnative fish (see ``Dumping of Trash
and Introduction of Nonnative Fish'' under Factor E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence, below). One peer
reviewer later suggested that it was possible, although unlikely, that
native marine fish would be intentionally introduced to the four pools
at Manuka.
Our Response: We agree that the introduction of native marine
species, normally isolated from the anchialine pool environment, into
the anchialine pool at Lua o Palahemo that supports Vetericaris
chaceorum may be possible. For the reasons described below, we believe
it is unlikely that natural events such as high surf and storm surges
will introduce native marine fish to either location (Lua o Palahemo or
Manuka) of V. chaceorum, although one peer reviewer suggested that the
2005 earthquake on Hawaii Island may have reopened or improved the
connection between the ocean and Lua o Palahemo, thus allowing natural
recruitment of native marine fish into and out of the pool (Kinzie
2012, in litt.). The intentional introduction of native marine fish is
possible at its two known locations.
Nonnative fish have been intentionally introduced to Lua o Palahemo
in the past (see ``Dumping of Trash and Introduction of Nonnative
Fish'' under Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their
Continued Existence, below), and it is not unreasonable to assume that
native marine fish may be deliberately introduced to the pool. In our
2012 snorkel survey of this pool, we observed a tropical marine goby in
the pool (Wada et al. 2012, in litt.). However, it is unclear how this
fish gained access to the pool. The accidental introduction or natural
recruitment of native marine fish due to natural events such as storm
surge and high surf is unlikely at Lua o Palahemo due to its elevation
above the coast (approximately 25 ft (8 m)) and its distance from the
coast (490 ft (150 m)) (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418). Although a
massive landslide or earthquake may trigger a local tsunami that
generates waves that may sweep over and deposit native marine fish in
the pool, these events are purely speculative.
The intentional introduction of native marine fish is possible at
the Manuka pools that support V. chaceorum because there is evidence
that at least one pool in this area harbors nonnative freshwater
poeciliids (see Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below) and marine
fish, likely introduced by fishermen. This pool is located near a
popular coastal fishing spot. Three of the four pools that support V.
chaceorum at Manuka are located between 10 and 33 ft (3 and 10 m) from
a jeep road that provides access to coastal fishing and recreational
locations frequented by the public (Sakihara 2013, in litt.). The
fourth pool is approximately 60 ft (18 m) from the jeep road (Sakihara
2013, in litt.). However, the accidental introduction or natural
recruitment of native marine fish, due to natural events such as storm
surge and high surf, is unlikely at the four pools that support V.
chaceorum at Manuka because these pools are located at least 98 ft (30
m) from the coast (Sakihara 2013, in litt.), and storm surge and high
surf that would cover this distance is improbable. Although a massive
landslide or earthquake may trigger a tsunami that generates waves that
may sweep over and deposit native marine fish in the pools, these
events are purely speculative.
On Maui, both aholehole and papio have been found in the larger
anchialine pools closest to the ocean at Ahihi Kinau NAR, where high
surf and storm waves appear to wash those and other native marine fish
into the pools (Wada 2013, in litt.). However, these pools are
[[Page 64649]]
subject to coastal influences due to natural events such as storm surge
and high surf due to their proximity to the ocean. We are unaware of
any data documenting the impacts of native marine fish that may be
swept into the pools at Ahihi Kinau NAR on native anchialine pool
shrimp.
Native marine fish species have a purely marine (pelagic) larval
stage, so a population of native fishes in an anchialine pool is likely
to be individuals that are introduced to pools post larvae-stage
(Sakihara 2013, in litt.). According to Brock (2004, p. 9), native
marine fish are typically found in pools in close proximity to the
ocean and it is believed that the biological status of these pools
changes with successful colonization or mortality of marine fishes in
these pools. The presence of native fish in Hawaiian anchialine pools
usually signals the lack of hypogeal shrimp (Brock 2004, p. 9). Brock
(2004, p. 29) also states that native marine fish are not able to
complete their life cycles in anchialine pools, so the impacts to
hypogeal shrimp are temporary (i.e., only as long as the fish occupy
the pool) and that hypogeal shrimp may successfully hide in crevices
from predatory fish and thus possibly recolonize a pool after the fish
die off. Therefore, although V. chaceorum is a hypogeal shrimp and
three species upon which it is known to feed in Lua o Palahemo are
hypogeal shrimp, we are unable to determine the impact of marine fish
on V. chaceorum at this time.
(18) Comment: Two peer reviewers mentioned the presence of
aggressive biting isopods and an eel at Lua o Palahemo, and the
possibility of the eel, specifically, as a predator of Vetericaris
chaceorum.
Our Response: We are aware that eels have been seen periodically in
other anchialine pools, including pools at Manuka NAR on Hawaii Island
and Ahihi Kinau on Maui. At this time, however, there are insufficient
data to determine the impacts on Vetericaris chaceorum from biting
isopods and an unidentified eel at Lua o Palahemo. Therefore, we are
unable to address these animals as threats to V. chaceorum in this
final rule. We will consider the need to address biting isopods and
eels in our future recovery planning efforts for this species, should
new information become available indicating these animals are threats
to V. chaceorum.
(19) Comment: Two peer reviewers suggested that earthquakes and
subsequent landslides and rockfalls are threats to Vetericaris
chaceorum, due to destruction or degradation of its pool habitat. This
peer reviewer believes that given a large enough earthquake, the Lua o
Palahemo anchialine pool could potentially lose its connection to the
ocean by boulder ``chokes'' that block off movement of ocean water to
and from the pool, or by a complete or partial collapse of the tube
itself. This peer reviewer then added that we would need an engineer to
make a more definitive assessment regarding the pool's vulnerability to
collapse.
Our Response: We agree that earthquakes and subsequent landslides
and rockfalls are potential threats to Vetericaris chaceorum and its
habitat. We also agree that an engineer or other professional with the
necessary skills is needed to assess the vulnerability of the lava
tubes within the Lua o Palahemo anchialine pool to the threat of
earthquakes. We do not have enough data to include earthquakes as a
threat at this time.
(20) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented that our analysis of the
threats to Vetericaris chaceorum seemed too focused on the surface of
the anchialine pool rather than on the depths within Lua o Palahemo
(where V. chaceorum is reported to occur). One of the peer reviewers
questioned the relevance of threats at the opening when the species is
so far below the surface, while the other peer reviewer stated that any
impacts at the surface of the pool may lead to degradation of the
habitat within the recesses of the lava tube by causing shifts in water
quality, physical conditions, and flushing, and therefore causing
shifts in biological characteristics (i.e., benthic algae and primary
consumer abundance and assemblage). As such, these threats may extend
beyond the immediately impacted areas at Lua o Palahemo.
Our Response: Based on the best scientific and commercial data
available, we believe Vetericaris chaceorum faces threats from habitat
loss or degradation from sedimentation in Lua o Palahemo due to
degradation of the immediate area surrounding the pool. Feral goats and
cattle trample and forage on both native and nonnative plants around
and near the pool opening (Magnacca 2012, in litt.; Richardson 2012, in
litt.), increasing erosion resulting in sediment entering the pool (see
``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates'' under
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range, below). In addition, V. chaceorum
faces threats from the intentional dumping of trash (at Lua o Palahemo)
and introduction of nonnative fish (at Lua o Palahemo and Manuka NAR),
activities which originate at the pool openings and result in impacts
to V. chaceorum (within the deep recesses of Lua o Palahemo and within
the shallower pools at Manuka NAR) (see ``Dumping of Trash and
Introduction of Nonnative Fish'' under Factor E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence, below).
(21) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule
presents a good summary of potential threats to the shrimp and its
habitat, and it clearly makes the point that the population at Lua o
Palahemo is exceedingly small and probably declining, if not extinct.
Our Response: We appreciate this reviewer's concurrence and have
considered that the shrimp may no longer be extant at Lua o Palahemo;
however, since anchialine pool shrimp are known to spend much of their
time within the crevices of pools, we believe the species may still be
present in the pool, but in very low numbers.
(22) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that they had observed
items that humans dumped into Lua o Palahemo, including a bicycle, boom
box, and large cement block, but that they were uncertain whether or
not these items had a deleterious or observable effect on V. chaceorum.
Our Response: The impact of human dumping of trash into an
anchialine pool is directly related to the proportion between the size
of the pool and the amount and type of trash dumped. For example, a
large trash bag in a small, shallow anchialine pool will negatively
impact habitat quality, whereas the negative effect from same trash bag
in a larger, deeper anchialine pool will not reach the same magnitude
of effect. In addition, if the boom box had decaying batteries in it,
contaminants such as lead, mercury and cadmium could have leached into
the pool (Center for Disease Control--Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (CDC-ATSDR) 2011--Toxic Substance Database). In
addition, there is risk from exposure to general electronic waste
contaminants, which contain various hazardous materials and are harmful
to the environment (e.g., polyvinyl chloride, polychlorinated
biphenyls, and chromium) (CDC-ATSDR 2011--Toxic Substance Database).
These toxins produce varying effects on biological organisms that
include, but are not limited to, deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) damage,
mucous membrane damage, cancer, and organ failure (CDC-ATSDR 2011--
Toxic Substance Database).
(23) Comment: Five peer reviewers commented on the likelihood of
[[Page 64650]]
whether or not Vetericaris chaceorum has a niched habitat deep within
the darkness of the lava tube at Lua o Palahemo where it was observed
in 1985, or whether it has a broader habitat that extends throughout
the matrix of the lava tube of Lua o Palahemo. The first of these peer
reviewers commented that, due to insufficient data and the challenging
conditions of assessing the particular habitat(s) of Lua o Palahemo, it
would be difficult to determine whether this species would likely occur
throughout Lua o Palahemo or only be limited to the area where it was
originally collected from within the lava tube. The second peer
reviewer commented that literature suggested that Vetericaris chaceorum
did not have a uniform distribution throughout Lua o Palahemo when it
was first observed and collected, so that would suggest that it does
have a limited niche and that it is highly likely that it would be
still limited to the area where it was originally collected within the
lava tube. The third of these peer reviewers commented that it has been
confirmed that the range of Vetericaris chaceorum extends beyond Lua o
Palahemo, although only approximately 25 km away. Therefore, it is
plausible that its distribution within Lua o Palahemo also extends
beyond where it was originally collected. Furthermore, the habitat in
which Vetericaris chaceorum was found at Manuka is considerably
different than that of Lua o Palahemo, which was characterized by
shallow (less than 0.5 m deep), open pools dispersed throughout barren
basaltic terrain. Accordingly, its range does not seem to be limited to
the deep recesses of the anchialine habitat, but may also roam freely
throughout shallow exposed areas. The fourth peer reviewer commented
that Vetericaris chaceorum likely has a wider lateral distribution in
the Lua o Palahemo lava tube and that it is likely found in adjacent
hypogeal habitat. The fourth peer reviewer also commented that it is
unclear if Vetericaris chaceorum venture into the lighted, mixohaline
portion of Lua o Palahemo. The fifth peer reviewer commented that there
is no reason to believe that the shrimp's range did not extend, at
least, to the ends of that lava tube, and possibly into other openings
connecting to it. As the boundaries of Lua o Palahemo were not defined
in the proposed rule, an answer to the question about ``throughout Lua
o Palahemo'' is not clear.
Our Response: We agree and are aware that it is difficult to know
exactly where this species occurs within Lua o Palahemo, and whether or
not it favors the depth at which it was observed or if it utilizes the
greater part of the lava tube. The newly discovered occurrence in the
shallow pools at Manuka suggests that the habitat is not limited to the
area it was originally collected from deep within the lava tube at Lua
o Palahemo, and that it is likely Vetericaris chaceorum occupies areas
along the matrices of Lua o Palahemo at varying depths. Because
hypogeal shrimp often spend much of their time in crevices, and it is
possible that V. chaceorum can occur throughout the lava tube, we
retain the status of extant for the population of V. chaceorum at this
location, despite the fact that V. chaceorum was not observed in recent
surveys. Regarding the boundaries of Lua o Palahemo, we do not
currently have any data that lay out the entire matrix of the lava
tube, nor are we aware that such data exist.
(24) Comment: Three peer reviewers commented that the threats to
the habitat of Lua o Palahemo expand throughout the entire lava tube
matrix. One of these three peer reviewers also said that the historical
differences documented for Lua o Palahemo, primarily in water clarity
and quality, and the absence of other shrimp species that were common
(such as Halocaridina) suggests the habitat has undergone serious
degradation in the last 30 to 40 years that is likely to get worse if
actions are not taken.
Our Response: We agree that the threats to the species' habitat at
Lua o Palahemo are not limited to any particular area and span the
scope of the entire lava tube matrix. We also agree that more surveys
and monitoring efforts are needed to determine how best to recover this
habitat. The Service has conducted surveys in 2010 and 2012 (Wada 2012,
pers. comm.; Wada et al. 2012, in litt.), and will continue to monitor
and research this habitat in the future, in addition to conservation
methodologies to recover Vetericaris chaceorum at this site.
(25) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that it is unclear that
the best available scientific data and methodologies currently
available can determine rarity vs. human accessibility to the
Vetericaris chaceorum. This commenter also stated that a dark-adapted
organism could potentially be found anywhere within the hypogeal
environment of the Hawaiian Islands, and that the Service may be
drawing its listing conclusion of this species based on lack of
biological knowledge. In addition, this reviewer commented that the
lack of information may not enable practical management decisions.
Our Response: We agree that it is difficult to determine the entire
range that is occupied by Vetericaris chaceorum on Hawaii Island or
elsewhere in the Hawaiian Islands. We have based our determination on
the number of estimated pools throughout the Hawaiian Islands and the
percentage of these pools that have been surveyed. Despite surveys
throughout the islands, Vetericaris chaceorum has only been observed in
two pool complexes on Hawaii Island: Lua o Palahemo and Manuka. In
addition, the fact that these two habitats are so different informs us
that Vetericaris chaceorum is not solely a dark-adapted organism, but
that it is has a range of suitable habitat that also includes shallow
pools in full sunlight. This increase in suitable habitat types, the
number of surveys throughout the Hawaiian Islands, and the fact that in
total only 12 shrimp (5 at Lua o Palahemo and 7 at Manuka) have ever
been observed suggest that Vetericaris chaceorum is not occurring in
high numbers. We do not currently have methodologies that afford us the
opportunity to search cracks and crevices within the anchialine pool
environment; however, if this type of survey technology equipment
becomes available, it will certainly enhance our understanding of the
population dynamics of hypogeal shrimp, including Vetericaris
chaceorum. The Service agrees that additional information will benefit
management decisions.
(26) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented on the connection of Lua
o Palahemo to the marine environment. One of these reviewers commented
that the further collapse of the lava tube and increased siltation may
have the effect of decreasing the slight flow of colder water into the
depth of the lava tube, and that the further collapse may actually have
a beneficial effect, such as isolation from human access. The second
peer reviewer commented that the lava tube may be connected to a deep
water marine habitat and associated fauna.
Our Response: Kensley and Williams (1986, p. 435) state that it is
probable that neither temperature nor salinity imposes a barrier to the
dispersal of hypogeal shrimp. They reported a surface temperature of 24
degrees Celsius, but they did not report the temperature at the depth
they observed Vetericaris chaceorum (Kensley and Williams 1986, p.
418). During the surveys conducted by the Service in 2012, the
temperature of the water at a depth of 7.5 m from the surface ranged
from 23.8 degrees Celsius at noon to 26.4 Celsius at 4:50 a.m. (Wada et
al. 2012, in litt.). The data suggest
[[Page 64651]]
temperature is not currently a determining factor in the presence or
absence of Vetericaris chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo.
The definition of an anchialine pool includes being tidally
influenced due to a subterranean connection to the ocean, so we agree
that the lava tube is connected to a marine habitat and fauna, although
to what extent and what depth is not known at this time. The size
(i.e., a smaller cracks versus a wide diameter lava tube) of the
connection to the marine environment will determine to some extent the
species present in a given anchialine pool; the better the connection
to the sea, the more likely a pool will have marine organisms (Brock
2004, p. 9). For example, the unusual ecotypic variant of the moray eel
(Gymnothorax pictus, puhi) is often found in pools with better
connections to the sea (Brock 2004, p. 9). Regarding relationship
between a further collapse of the lava tube and human access, we have
no data to support or deny a benefit from limiting human access to the
depths of Lua o Palahemo.
(27) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that since so little is
known about Vetericaris chaceorum, most considerations of threats are
conjectural, and that because no apparent observations have been made
of this species in the upper reaches of Lua o Palahemo, purported
threats to other anchialine species may not be a limiting factor or
relevant to life in the lightless marine environment.
Our Response: As described earlier, Vetericaris chaceorum was
initially discovered in 1985, in complete darkness within one of the
lava tubes at Lua o Palahemo, at a location 180 m (590 ft) from the
opening, at a depth of 30 m (98 ft). We agree that there is still much
to be learned about V. chaceorum's life history and biology. It was
recently confirmed that the species is not confined to the dark depths
of Lua o Palahemo. In addition, Sakihara (2013, in litt.) observed V.
chaceorum feeding on other anchialine pool shrimp species. Considering
the new information, threats to other anchialine pool shrimp at varying
depths are directly relevant to the survival of V. chaceorum. If the
food supply of V. chaceorum is declining or diminished, it will have a
direct impact on the health and survival of V. chaceorum. Further, the
threats of dumping nonnative fish and trash can directly negatively
impact the ecosystem at either Lua o Palahemo or Manuka; this is
confirmed by observations at other anchialine pools around the Hawaiian
Islands where nonnative fish and trash have caused the degradation of
pools (Brock 2004, pp. 12-15).
(28) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the value of comparing
Vetericaris chaceorum with the anchialine pool shrimp Halocaridina
rubra. This peer reviewer commented that Vetericaris chaceorum is
likely much more specialized and that its lack of eyes, limited
swimming option, and, as far as is known, very limited distribution
makes comparisons between the two species uninformative for the most
part. This peer reviewer further stated that the observations on the
behavior of V. chaceorum suggests it may prey on smaller organisms by
capturing them in the basket formed by its pereiopods as it swims in
the dark; if this is true, the species would require large volumes of
open water. The reviewer further elaborates that Kensley and Williams
(1986) note the species is a strong swimmer and apparently stays in
midwater, avoiding the solid walls, consistent with the filter-basket
feeding hypothesis. If true, this makes this species somewhat different
from other anchialine shrimp, which are generally associated with the
substratum, although Maciolek observed H. rubra feeding in midwater
``presumably grazing only on phytoplankton.'' Similarly V. chaceorum
does not appear to be very similar to the more well-studied anchialine
shrimp. Its troglobitic (more correctly stygobitic) habit, large size,
possibly its specialized trophic role and potentially unique
evolutionary history should make comparisons with other anchialine
shrimp suspect.
Our Response: We appreciate this reviewer's comments regarding the
value of comparing Vetericaris chaceorum and Halocaridina rubra. We
agree that these two shrimp are not exactly the same; however, H. rubra
is the most well-studied anchialine pool shrimp in the Hawaiian
Islands, and, therefore, we used it as a surrogate species in some
examples for V. chaceorum in regards to the negative impacts associated
with human dumping of nonnative fish and trash, in addition to
recognizing it as a potential food source for V. chaceorum. The newly
discovered population of V. chaceorum in the four shallow pools at
Manuka has broadened our understanding of the range and habitat for
this species, debunking the thoughts that this species is niched to the
dark depths of Lua o Palahemo. Further, this challenges the above
hypothesis that this species may require large volumes of open water.
As stated in the comments above, we have much to learn about V.
chaceorum, and we base our action in this rule on the fact that the
habitat is threatened by sedimentation, recreational off-road vehicles,
human dumping of nonnative fish, and human dumping of trash.
(29) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that poeciliids are not
only introduced illegally in Hawaii, State agencies introduce mosquito
fish to freshwater and anchialine habitats as mosquito control. While
perhaps legal, the effects are just as detrimental. However, the peer
reviewer did not think that mosquito control is a concern for a site
like Lua o Palahemo.
Our Response: We agree that mosquito control is not a concern at
Lua o Palahemo, and we have no information that would indicate that
State agencies are introducing nonnative fish at Manuka for mosquito
control.
(30) Comment: The proposed rule states that reduced flushing in the
pool portion of Lua o Palahemo may allow an accumulation of sediment
and detritus in the pool, reducing food productivity and the ability of
Vetericaris chaceorum to move between the pool and water table. One
peer reviewer commented there is no reason to discount the opposite
idea that increased flushing has mobilized the sediment, allowed the
movement of native predators and competitors into the system, and
resulted in the decline or perhaps extirpation of V. chaceorum. In
support of this is the statement in the October 17, 2012, proposed rule
at 77 FR 63939: ``During those dives, researchers made five
observations of Vetericaris chaceorum in total darkness at a depth of
108 ft (33 m) and 590 ft (180 m) from the opening, collecting two
specimens. Kensley and Williams (1986, p. 418) noted, however, that the
area surveyed directly beneath the surface of the pool contained the
highest density of animals (e.g., shrimps and crustaceans).'' This
suggests the very thick sediment cone just below the opening was not a
problem for the dense populations of native species. All this just
shows that there is an exceedingly limited understanding of how the
system functions, and specifically what physical, chemical, and
hydrologic aspects of the system promote sustaining V. chaceorum and
its associated species. This commenter suggested that a high level of
sediment is not, per se, deleterious to the shrimp, other anchialine
pool species, and, by inference, the entire pool.
Our Response: We agree it is possible that increased flushing
allowed the movement of native predators and competitors into the
system, resulting in the decline or perhaps extirpation of Vetericaris
chaceorum at Lua o
[[Page 64652]]
Palahemo; however, we are unaware of any data to support this
hypothesis. Recent surveys by the Service and State (Wada 2012, pers.
comm.; Wada et al. 2012, in litt.) have found the degradation of
habitat of Lua o Palahemo is a result of excessive siltation and
sedimentation of the anchialine pool system, combined with the
diminished ability of the system to flush, which Brock (2004, pp. 11,
35-36) described as necessary for a functioning anchialine pool system.
Long-term sedimentation accumulation leads to the senescence of
anchialine pools (Ramsey 2013, in litt.). Suspended sediment within the
water column of Lua o Palahemo likely reduces the capacity of the pool
to produce adequate cyanobacteria and algae to support some of the
pool's herbivorous hypogeal species. A decreased food supply (i.e., a
reduction in cyanobacteria and algae) would likely lead to a lower
abundance of herbivorous hypogeal shrimp species, as well as a lower
abundance of the known carnivorous species (i.e., Vetericaris
chaceorum). Because lower numbers of the herbivorous hypogeal shrimp
have been observed over time, the data indicate this is a contributing
to, but not necessarily the sole factor in, the lack of detection of
Vetericaris chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo.
(31) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that Lua o Palahemo
should not be treated as a typical anchialine pool. Rather it is a
singular system, or perhaps somewhat like Lake Kauhako. Extrapolating
from the little we know about typical anchialine systems will probably
not be productive.
Our Response: Anchialine pools are land-locked bodies of water that
have indirect underground connections to the sea, contain varying
levels of salinity, and show tidal fluctuations in water level. Lua o
Palahemo meets this definition. Further, Lua o Palahemo has floral and
faunal characteristics of an anchialine pool ecosystem (see Hawaii
Island Ecosystems and Description of the 15 Species, above). Lake
Kauhako is situated in the crater of an extinct, late Pleistocene
volcano on the north shore of Molokai, Hawaii, and reportedly not
tidally influenced, although early data suggested it may have been at
one time and anchialine pool shrimp were observed here in 1982
(Maciolek 1982, p. 12; Donachie et al. 1999, p. 93). Lake Kauhako is
considered one of the deepest lakes in the United States with a depth
of 814 ft (248 m) (Donachie et al. 1999, p. 93). Lake Kauhako is also
meromictic (has layers of water that do not intermix) and anoxic
(lacking dissolved oxygen) below 6 ft (2 m); Lua o Palahemo has not
been classified as meromictic and is not noted as anoxic until a depth
of 98 ft (30 m) and a distance of 180 m into one of the branches of the
lava tube from the base of the surface opening (Kensley and Williams
1986, pp. 417-20). Both Lake Kauhako and Lua o Palahemo do have
comparable surface dissolved oxygen and salinity and temperature
gradients; however, the shape and depth of each water body, in addition
to the presence or absence of tidal influence and meromictic
properties, provide some distinction for these two bodies of water.
(32) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the reproductive
mode of Vetericaris chaceorum would play an important role in
determining if populations could recolonize neighboring habitats after
a local extirpation. Maciolek postulates that these habitats are
colonized from long-existing subterranean populations, and Kensley and
Williams (1986) state: ``Given the relative youth of the Lua o Palahemo
lava tube, the above-mentioned and unexplained absences and
occurrences, and the presence of some of these shrimps in modern wells
and quarries, Maciolek's postulate (1983: 615) that these habitats are
colonized from long-existing subterranean populations, must be
strengthened.'' If this is true, the main habitat of V. chaceorum may
be completely different from what we know about Lua o Palahemo.
Our Response: We agree it would be beneficial to know the
reproductive mode for Vetericaris chaceorum; however, the complete life
history for this species is not known at this time. Hypogeal shrimp by
definition occupy subterranean habitat. The fact that V. chaceorum is
described as a primitive species, combined with the depth within Lua o
Palahemo in which V. chaceorum was observed and the recent discovery of
V. chaceorum in very different habitat at Manuka, together appear to
support Maciolek's hypothesis that hypogeal shrimp colonized anchialine
pool habitats from long-existing subterranean populations, but this is
only conjecture at this time. The newly discovered population at Manuka
supports the thought that the main habitat of V. chaceorum at Lua o
Palahemo is likely different from what we previously thought.
Comments From the State of Hawaii
(33) Comment: The Hawaii Department of Business, Economic
Development, and Tourism's Hawaii Housing Finance and Development
Corporation challenged our proposal to list Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla as an endangered species, stating that the lowland dry
ecosystem covers a very large area on Hawaii Island and that the
Service did not have enough studies regarding the absence or abundance
of this species within this ecosystem. According to this agency,
without knowing the absence or prevalence of this species, it cannot be
determined whether or not this species should be designated as
endangered, and the Service's findings are premature with no
foundation.
Our Response: We disagree that there is a lack of information
regarding the presence or abundance of Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla in the lowland dry ecosystem on the island of Hawaii and
that our determination to list this species as an endangered species is
premature and without foundation. Lowland dry ecosystems in the
Hawaiian Islands have undergone sweeping changes over the last 100
years due to development, agriculture, and nonnative plants and animals
that have resulted in the loss of over 90 percent of Hawaii's dry
forests (Bruegmann 1996, pp. 26-27; Cabin et al. 2000, pp. 439-453;
Sakai et al. 2002, pp. 276-302; Cordell et al. 2008, pp. 279-284);
however, the actual extent of native dry forest cover may be as low as
1 percent (Pau 2011, in litt.). Forty-five percent of Hawaii's dry
forest plant species are at risk of endangerment (Pau et al. 2009, p.
3,167). Twenty-five percent of the endangered plant species in the
Hawaiian Islands are dry forest species, and approximately 20 percent
of Hawaii's dry land plant species are believed to be extinct (Cabin et
al. 2000, pp. 439-453; Sakai et al. 2002, pp. 276-302). One of the last
remaining areas of lowland dry forest in the Hawaiian Islands is in the
north Kona region of Hawaii Island, where only patches or scattered
individuals of native plants remain amidst a sea of the highly
flammable, nonnative fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), where over
200,000 ac (80,939 ha) of land are covered with fountain grass (HISC
2013, in litt.). North Kona is also a rapidly growing, urban area with
a steady flow of new housing, roads, commercial, and industrial
developments. Surveys and observations conducted over the last 90 years
have detected Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla from only six
locations, totaling fewer than 1,000 individuals in north Kona (see
Description of the 15 Species, above) (Sherff 1920, p. 97; Degener and
Wiebke 1926, in litt.; Scottsberg 1926, in litt.; Borges and Degener
1929, in litt.; Degener and Iwasaki 1930, in litt.; Nishina 1931, in
litt.; Krajina 1961, in litt.; Gillett 1965,
[[Page 64653]]
in litt.; Nagata and Ganders 1983, pp. 1-16; Pratt and Abbott 1996, p.
26; Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273; TNC 2007-Ecosystem Database
of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished; Whistler 2007, pp. 1-18; Bio 2008,
in litt.; Whistler 2008, pp. 1-11; Hawaii Forest Institute 2009, in
litt.; Beavers 2010, in litt.; Faucette 2010, pp. 1-27; HBMP 2010b;
Giffin 2011, pers. comm.; Pau 2011, in litt.; Wagner 2011, in litt.;
Zimpfer 2011, in litt.; Kaahahui O Ka Nahelehele 2013, in litt.).
Under the Act, we determine whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of five factors (see
Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below), and we are
required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial data available [emphasis ours]
(sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b)(1)(A)). The threats to B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, as well as those that impact lowland dry ecosystems in the
Hawaiian Islands, are well documented. This plant species faces threats
from habitat degradation from development and nonnative ungulates
(feral pigs and goats), predation by nonnative ungulates (feral pigs
and goats) and rats, competition with nonnative plants, fire, drought,
hurricanes, and hybridization; it also faces threats from the
synergistic effects that may arise from any combination of these
threats (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below).
Therefore, in this final rule, we have made our determination to list
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla as an endangered species based on the
best scientific and commercial data available.
Comments From Federal Agencies
All of the comments we received from Federal agencies have been
incorporated, as appropriate, in the Description of the 15 Species,
above, and Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, below.
Public Comments on the Proposed Listing of 15 Species
(34) Comment: One commenter, representing Laiopua 2020, stated that
none of the 15 species proposed for listing occurs on parcels proposed
for development of the Laiopua Community Center (Tax Map Key parcels 3-
7-4-021:002, 003, and 023). The commenter provided a 2008 botanical
survey report (Gerrish and Leonard Bisel Associates, LLC, 2008, entire)
to confirm the absence of the 15 species on the three parcels.
Our Response: We appreciate the information provided by the
commenter and have taken it into consideration in this final listing
determination. The botanical survey published by Gerrish and Leonard
Bisel Associates, LLC, in 2008 was one of multiple surveys and
botanical expert reports used by the Service to determine the range of
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla in North Kona. Since Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla is known to occur in the area of Laiopua, the Service
considered this area as habitat for this species. In addition, there is
likely a seed bank in the soil of the surrounding area that, if given
the opportunity, can contribute toward the recovery of this species.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered
comments from the peer reviewers and public on the proposed listing for
15 species. This final rule incorporates the following substantive
changes to our proposed listing, based on the comments we received:
(1) We added inundation by high surf as a threat to the newly
listed plant Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana in the following
locations in this final rule: Table 3 (below) and ``Habitat Destruction
and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides, Heavy Rain,
Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought'' under Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range (below), based on a peer review comment.
(2) We added the nonnative understory plant species Sphagneticola
trilobata [Wedelia trilobata] (wedelia) as a threat to the plant Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana in the coastal and dry cliff
ecosystem, and to ``Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts'' (below),
based on a peer review comment.
(3) We added the nonnative vine Paederia foetida (skunk weed) as a
threat to the newly listed plant Cyrtandra nanawaleensis in the lowland
wet ecosystem and to ``Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts''
(below), based on a peer review comment.
(4) We added the nonnative canopy plant species Psidium cattleianum
(strawberry guava) as a threat to Cyanea tritomantha in the wet cliff
ecosystem, based on a peer review comment that we include this
nonnative plant species as a threat to this species in its known
locations, in this final rule.
(5) We added Pisonia spp. as a host plant for the picture-wing fly
Drosophila digressa, in the following locations in this final rule:
Description of the 15 Species (above); ``Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Introduced Ungulates'' and ``Habitat Destruction and
Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides, Heavy Rain,
Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought'' under Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range (below); ``Predation and Herbivory'' under Factor C.
Disease or Predation (below); and ``Loss of Host Plants'' under Factor
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence
(below), based on a peer review comment.
(6) Hawaii State biologists discovered a population of Vetericaris
chaceorum at Manuka NAR between 2009 and 2010. We solicited public
comments on the new location in the Federal Register in our April 30,
2013, document announcing the availability of the draft economic
analysis and reopening the comment period on the proposed rule (78 FR
25243). The new location information has been incorporated in the
following sections in this final rule: Description of the 15 Species
(above), ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Sedimentation''
under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range (below), and ``Dumping of Trash and
Introduction of Nonnative Fish'' (below) under Factor E. Other Natural
or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence, and we
reassessed whether listing was warranted for V. chaceorum based on this
additional information.
(7) We revised the statement that incorrectly indicated that the
outplanted individuals of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla within
KHNHP are fenced in Description of the 15 Species, above, based on a
comment we received.
Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued
[[Page 64654]]
existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above
threat factors, singly or in combination.
If we determine that the level of threat posed to a species by one
or more of the five listing factors is such that the species meets the
definition of either endangered or threatened under section 3 of the
Act, that species may then be listed as endangered or threatened. The
Act defines an endangered species as ``in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and a
threatened species as ``likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The threats to each of the individual 15 species are
summarized in Table 3, and discussed in detail below.
[[Page 64655]]
Table 3-Summary of Primary Threats Identified for Each of the 15 Hawaii Island Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predation/ Inadequate
Species Ecosystem Agriculture Non Stochastic Climate Over- Predation/ herbivory by Predation/ existing Other species-
and urban Ungulates native Fire events change utilization Disease herbivory by other NN herbivory by NN regulatory specific
development plants ungulates vertebrates invertebrates mechanisms threats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plants:
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. CO, DC........... ............ P, G............. X ....... H, RF, L, HS, E. Pt ........... ......... P, G............ R ................ X LN
hillebrandiana.
Bidens micrantha ssp. LD............... X P, G............. X X H, DR........... Pt ........... ......... P, G............ R ................ X HY
ctenophylla.
Cyanea marksii............ LW, MW........... ............ P, C, M.......... X ....... H, RF, L........ Pt ........... ......... P, C, M......... R S............... X LN
Cyanea tritomantha........ LW, MW, WC....... ............ P, C............. X ....... H, TF........... Pt ........... ......... P, C............ R S............... X NR
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis... LW............... ............ P................ X ....... H............... Pt ........... ......... P............... R S............... X HY
Cyrtandra wagneri......... LW............... ............ P................ X ....... H, HR, E........ Pt ........... ......... P............... R S............... X LN, HY
Phyllostegia floribunda... LW, MM, MW....... ............ P................ X X H............... Pt ........... ......... P............... ............ ................ X ..............
Pittosporum hawaiiense.... LM, MM, MW....... ............ P, C, M.......... X ....... H............... Pt ........... ......... P, C, M......... R ................ X NR
Platydesma remyi.......... LW, MW........... ............ P................ X ....... H............... Pt ........... ......... P............... ............ ................ X LN, NR
Pritchardia lanigera...... LM, LW, MW, WC... ............ P, G, M, C....... X ....... H............... Pt X ......... P, G, M......... R LH, B........... X NR
Schiedea diffusa ssp. MW............... ............ P, C............. X ....... H............... Pt ........... ......... P, C............ R ................ X LN
macraei.
Schiedea hawaiiensis...... MD............... ............ P, G, SH, M...... X X H, DR........... Pt ........... ......... P, G, SH, M..... R ................ X LN
Stenogyne cranwelliae..... MW, WC........... ............ P................ X ....... H............... Pt ........... ......... P............... R S............... X ..............
Animals
Drosophila digressa LM, MM, MW....... ............ P, G, C, M....... X X H, DR........... Pt ........... ......... ................ ............ W, A............ X LN, LOH, F
(Picture-wing fly).
Vetericaris chaceorum AP............... ............ G, C............. ....... ....... ................ Pt ........... ......... ................ ............ ................ X REC, SD, D
(Anchialine pool shrimp).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor A = Habitat Modification LW = Lowland Wet SH = Sheep DR = Drought HY = Hybridization
Factor B = Overutilization MD = Montane Dry M = Mouflon RF = Rockfalls NR = No Regeneration
Factor C = Disease or Predation MM = Montane Mesic R = Rats L = Landslides F = Flies
Factor D = Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms MW = Montane Wet S = Slugs HR = Heavy Rain LOH = Loss of Host
Factor E = Other Species-Specific Threats DC = Dry Cliff W = Wasps HS = High Surf REC = Recreational vehicles
AP = Anchialine Pools WC = Wet Cliff A = Ants E = Erosion SD = Sedimentation
CO = Coastal P = Pigs LH = Leafhopper TF = Tree Fall Pt = Potential
LD = Lowland Dry G = Goats B = Beetles D = Dumping (i.e., Human dumping of nonnative fish and trash) X = Threat
LM = Lowland Mesic C = Cattle H = Hurricane LN = Limited Numbers Blank = Not a Threat
[[Page 64656]]
The following constitutes a list of ecosystem-scale threats that
affect the species in this final rule in one or more of the 10
described ecosystems on Hawaii Island:
(1) Foraging and trampling of native plants by feral pigs (Sus
scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), sheep (Ovis aries),
or mouflon sheep (Ovis gmelini musimon), which results in severe
erosion of watersheds because these mammals inhabit terrain that is
often steep and remote (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63). Foraging and
trampling events destabilize soils that support native plant
communities, bury or damage native plants, and have adverse water
quality effects due to runoff over exposed soils.
(2) Ungulate destruction of seeds and seedlings of native plant
species via foraging and trampling (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63, 65)
facilitates the conversion of disturbed areas from native to nonnative
vegetative communities.
(3) Disturbance of soils by feral pigs from rooting can create
fertile seedbeds for alien plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65), some
of them spread by ingestion and excretion by pigs.
(4) Increased nutrient availability as a result of pigs rooting in
nitrogen-poor soils, which facilitates establishment of alien weeds.
Introduced vertebrates are known to enhance the germination of alien
plants through seed scarification in digestive tracts or through
rooting and fertilization with feces of potential seedbeds (Stone 1985,
p, 253). In addition, alien weeds are more adapted to nutrient-rich
soils than native plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65), and rooting
activity creates open areas in forests allowing alien species to
completely replace native stands.
(5) Rodent damage to plant propagules, seedlings, or native trees,
which changes forest composition and structure (Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 67).
(6) Feeding or defoliation of native plants from alien insects,
which reduces geographic ranges of some species because of damage
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 71).
(7) Alien insect predation on native insects, which affects
pollination of native plant species (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 71).
(8) Significant changes in nutrient cycling processes because of
large numbers of alien invertebrates, such as earthworms, ants, slugs,
isopods, millipedes, and snails, resulting in changes to the
composition and structure of plant communities (Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 73).
Each of the above threats is discussed in more detail below, and
summarized in Table 3.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range
The Hawaiian Islands are located over 2,000 mi (3,200 km) from the
nearest continent. This isolation has allowed the few plants and
animals that arrived in the Hawaiian Islands to evolve into many highly
varied and endemic species (species that occur nowhere else in the
world). The only native terrestrial mammals in the Hawaiian Islands are
two bat taxa, the extant Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)
and an extinct, unnamed, insectivorous bat (Ziegler 2002, p. 245). The
native plants of the Hawaiian Islands, therefore, evolved in the
absence of mammalian predators, browsers, or grazers. As a result, many
of the native species have lost unneeded defenses against threats such
as mammalian predation and competition with aggressive, weedy plant
species that are typical of continental environments (Loope 1992, p.
11; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45; Wagner et al. 1999d, pp. 3-6). For
example, Carlquist (in Carlquist and Cole 1974, p. 29) notes that
``Hawaiian plants are notably free from many characteristics thought to
be deterrents to herbivores (toxins, oils, resins, stinging hairs,
coarse texture).''
Native Hawaiian plants are therefore highly vulnerable to the
impacts of introduced mammals and alien plants. In addition, species
restricted and adapted to highly specialized locations (e.g., Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana) are particularly vulnerable to
changes (e.g., nonnative species, hurricanes, fire, and climate change)
in their habitat (Carlquist and Cole 1974, pp. 28-29; Loope 1992, pp.
3-6; Stone 1992, pp. 88-102).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Agriculture and Urban
Development
The consequences of past land use practices, such as agricultural
or urban development, have resulted in little or no native vegetation
below 2,000 ft (600 m) throughout the Hawaiian Islands (TNC 2007-
Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished), largely
impacting the coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, and lowland wet
ecosystems. Although agriculture has been declining in importance,
large tracts of former agricultural lands are being converted into
residential areas or left fallow (TNC 2007-Ecosystem Database of ArcMap
Shapefiles, unpublished). In addition, Hawaii's population has
increased almost 7 percent in the past 10 years, further increasing
demands on limited land and water resources in the islands (Hawaii
Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (HDBEDT)
2010).
Development and urbanization of the lowland dry ecosystem on Hawaii
Island is a threat to one species in this rule, Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla. Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is currently found in an
area less than 10 sq mi (26 sq km) on the leeward slopes of Hualalai
volcano in the lowland dry ecosystem. This area encompasses the
increasingly urbanized region of north Kona, where there is very little
undisturbed habitat (Pratt and Abbott 1997, p. 25). Approximately 25
percent (119 individuals of 475) of the largest of the 6 occurrences of
this species is in the right-of-way of the Ane Keohokalole Highway
Project (USFWS 2010, in litt.) and Kaloko Makai Development, although
154 ac (62 ha) will be set aside as a lowland dry forest preserve
(Kaloko Makai Dryland Forest Preserve) to compensate for the loss of
these individuals as a result of highway construction and prior to the
Kaloko Makai Development. Individuals of Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla also occur in areas where the development of the Villages
of Laiopua at Kealakehe and of the Keahuolu affordable housing project
(Whistler 2007, pp. 1-18; DHHL 2009, p. 15) is a threat to the species.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates
Introduced mammals have greatly impacted the native vegetation, as
well as the native fauna, of the Hawaiian Islands. The presence of
introduced alien mammals is considered one of the primary factors
underlying the alteration and degradation of native plant communities
and habitats on the island of Hawaii. The destruction or degradation of
habitat due to nonnative ungulates (hoofed mammals), including pigs,
goats, cattle, sheep, and mouflon, is currently a threat to the 10
ecosystems (lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry,
montane mesic, montane wet, coastal, anchialine pool, dry cliff, and
wet cliff) on Hawaii Island and their associated species. Habitat
degradation or destruction by ungulates is also a threat to all 13
plant species and the picture-wing fly in this final rule (Table 3).
Habitat degradation or destruction by ungulates is a threat to the
anchialine pool shrimp at Lua o Palahemo, but is not reported to pose a
threat to the four pools that support this species at Manuka.
[[Page 64657]]
The destruction or degradation of habitat due to pigs is currently
a threat to nine of the Hawaii Island ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet,
dry cliff, and wet cliff) and their associated species. In Hawaii, pigs
have been described as the most pervasive and disruptive nonnative
influence on the unique native forests of the Hawaiian Islands, and are
widely recognized as one of the greatest current threats to forest
ecosystems (Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56; Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 195).
These feral animals are extremely destructive and have both direct
and indirect impacts on native plant communities. While rooting in the
earth in search of invertebrates and plant material, pigs directly
impact native plants by disturbing and destroying vegetative cover, and
by trampling plants and seedlings. It has been estimated that at a
conservative rooting rate of 2 sq yards (yd) (1.7 sq m) per minute,
with only 4 hours of foraging a day, a single pig could disturb over
1,600 sq yd (1,340 sq m) (or approximately 0.3 ac, or 0.12 ha) of
groundcover per week (Anderson et al. 2007, p. 2).
Pigs reduce or eliminate plant regeneration by damaging or eating
seeds and seedlings (further discussion of predation by nonnative
ungulates is provided under Factor C. Disease or Predation, below).
Pigs are a major vector for the establishment and spread of competing
invasive, nonnative plant species by dispersing plant seeds on their
hooves and fur, and in their feces (Diong 1982, pp. 169-170), which
also serves to fertilize disturbed soil (Matson 1990, p. 245; Siemann
et al. 2009, p. 547). Pigs feed on the fruits of many nonnative plants,
such as Passiflora tarminiana (banana poke) and Psidium cattleianum
(strawberry guava), spreading the seeds of these invasive species
through their feces as they travel in search of food. Pigs also feed on
native plants, such as Hawaiian tree ferns that they root up to eat the
core of the trunk (Baker 1975, p. 79). In addition, rooting pigs
contribute to erosion by clearing vegetation and creating large areas
of disturbed soil, especially on slopes (Smith 1985, pp. 190, 192, 196,
200, 204, 230-231; Stone 1985, pp. 254-255, 262-264; Medeiros et al.
1986, pp. 27-28; Scott et al. 1986, pp. 360-361; Tomich 1986, pp. 120-
126; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 64-65; Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56; Loope
et al. 1991, pp. 1-21; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 52; Nogueira-Filho et
al. 2009, pp. 3,677-3,682; Dunkell et al. 2011, pp. 175-177). Erosion
impacts native plant communities by watershed degradation and
alteration of plant nutrient status due to associated outcomes such as
sediment build up in waterways and top soil run off, respectively, as
well as damage to individual plants from landslides (Vitousek et al.
2009, pp. 3074-3086; Chan-Halbrendt et al. 2010, p. 252).
Pigs have been cited as one of the greatest threats to the public
and private lands within the Olaa Kilauea Partnership (an area of land
that includes approximately 32,000 ac (12,950 ha) in the upper sections
of the Olaa and Waiakea forests above Volcano village) that comprise
the lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet
ecosystems that support individuals of three of the plant species in
this final rule (Cyanea tritomantha, Phyllostegia floribunda, and
Pittosporum hawaiiense) (Olaa Kilauea Partnership Area Feral Animal
Monitoring Report 2005, pp. 1-4; Perlman 2007, in litt.; Pratt 2007a,
in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.; Benitez et al. 2008, p. 58; HBMP
2010f; HBMP 2010h; PEPP 2010, p. 60, TNC 2012, in litt.). Impacts from
feral pigs are also a threat to the coastal, lowland mesic, lowland
wet, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff ecosystems in the northern
Kohala Mountains and adjacent coastline. These ecosystems support
occurrences of seven of the plant species in this final rule (Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra
wagneri, Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp.
macraei, and Stenogyne cranwelliae) (Wood 1995, in litt.; Wood 1998, in
litt.; Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.; Wagner et al. 2005d, pp. 31-33;
Kohala Mountain Watershed Partnership (KMWP) 2007, pp. 54-56; Lorence
and Perlman 2007, pp. 357-361; HBMP 2010a; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP
2010i; HBMP 2010j; HBMP 2010k; PEPP 2010, pp. 63, 101, 106; Bio 2011,
pers. comm.). In addition, feral pigs are a threat to the lowland wet
and montane wet ecosystems in south Kona, Kau, and Puna districts that
support the plants Cyanea marksii, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, and
Pritchardia lanigera (Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Magnacca 2011b, pers.
comm.; Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project 2011, in litt.; Crysdale 2013,
pers. comm.). Feral pigs have also been reported in the lowland dry
ecosystem that supports the plant Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
(Bio 2011, pers. comm.) and the montane dry ecosystem that supports
habitat for the only known occurrence of the plant Schiedea hawaiiensis
(Mitchell et al. 2005c; U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp. 27, 34, 95-97,
100-107, 112). Although we do not have direct evidence of feral pigs
threatening the particular species on Hawaii Island that are in this
final rule, those threats have been documented on other islands where
pigs have been introduced (Mitchell et al. 2005c; U.S. Army Garrison
2006, pp. 27, 34, 95-97, 100-107, 112). We find it is reasonable to
infer that feral pig threats to these species that have been observed
on other Hawaiian islands would act in a similar manner on Hawaii
Island, where those species interact.
Many of the most important host plants of Hawaiian picture-wing
flies (Charpentiera, Pisonia, Pleomele, Reynoldsia, Tetraplasandra,
Urera, and the lobelioids (e.g., Cyanea spp.)) are also among the most
susceptible to damage from feral ungulates, such as pigs (Foote and
Carson 1995, p. 370; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 8, 39; Magnacca
et al. 2008, p. 32; Magnacca 2013, in litt.). Feral pig browsing alters
the essential microclimate in picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa)
habitat by opening up the canopy, leading to increased desiccation of
soil and host plants (Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia ssp.), which
disrupts the host plants' life cycle and decay processes, resulting in
disruption of the picture-wing fly's life cycle, particularly
oviposition and larvae substrate (Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 1, 32).
Foote and Carson (1995, p. 369) have experimentally demonstrated the
above detrimental effects of feral pigs on Drosophila spp. in wet
forest habitat on the island of Hawaii. In addition, Montgomery (2005,
in litt.; 2007, in litt.) and Foote (2005, pers. comm.) have observed
feral pig damage to host plants (e.g., Charpentiera sp., Cheirodendron
sp., Pleomele sp., Tetraplasandra sp., Urera kaalae) of Hawaiian
picture-wing flies on the island of Hawaii (Foote 2005, pers. comm.)
and throughout the main Hawaiian Islands (Montgomery 2005, in litt.;
2007, in litt.). Magnacca (2012, pers. comm.) has observed the lack of
regeneration of picture-wing fly host plants due to destruction of
seedlings caused by pig rooting and herbivory.
The destruction or degradation of habitat due to goats is currently
a threat to all 10 of the described ecosystems on Hawaii Island
(anchialine pool, coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) and
their associated species. Goats occupy a wide variety of habitats on
Hawaii Island, where they consume native vegetation, trample roots and
seedlings, accelerate erosion, and promote the invasion of alien plants
[[Page 64658]]
(van Riper and van Riper 1982, pp. 34-35; Stone 1985, p. 261; Kessler
2011, pers. comm.). Goats are able to access, and forage in, extremely
rugged terrain, and they have a high reproductive capacity (Clarke and
Cuddihy 1980, pp. C-19, C-20; Culliney 1988, p. 336; Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 64). Because of these factors, goats have completely
eliminated some plant species from islands (Atkinson and Atkinson 2000,
p. 21).
Goats are be highly destructive to native vegetation, and
contribute to erosion by eating young trees and young shoots of plants
before they can become established, creating trails that damage native
vegetative cover, promoting erosion by destabilizing substrate and
creating gullies that convey water, and dislodging stones from ledges
that can cause rockfalls and landslides and damage vegetation below
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63-64). A recent study by Chynoweth et al.
(2011, in litt.), which deployed GPS (global positioning system)
satellite collars on 12 feral goats to track movement patterns every 2
hours for 1 year in Pohakuloa Training Area, found that goats prefer
native-dominated shrublands in the montane dry ecosystem during the day
and barren lava at night. Pohakuloa Training Area supports one of the
few montane dry forest ecosystems on Hawaii Island that supports native
plants in the montane dry ecosystem, including the only occurrence of
the plant Schiedea hawaiiensis (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp. 27, 34;
Evans 2011, in litt.). In addition, one of the two occurrences of the
plant Pritchardia lanigera is known from an unfenced area of the Kohala
Mountains, where herds of wild goats and other ungulates occur (Maly
and Maly 2004 in KMWP 2007, p. 55; KMWP 2007, pp. 54-55; Warshauer et
al. 2009, pp. 10, 24; Laws et al. 2010, in litt.; Ikagawa 2011, in
litt.). Maly and Maly (2004 in KMWP 2007, p. 55) report that ``herds of
wild goats roam throughout this region, trampling, grubbing, and
rending, grinding the bark of old trees and eat the young ones . . .
which will destroy the beauty and alter the climate of the mountainous
region of Hawaii.'' There are direct observations that goats are also
altering the coastal ecosystem along the Kohala Mountains, the location
of the only known wild individuals of the plant Bidens hillebrandiana
ssp. hillebrandiana (Warshauer et al. 2009, p. 24; Bio 2011, pers.
comm.). Goats are also found in North Kona and have been observed
browsing in the lowland dry ecosystem that supports the plant B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Knoche 2011, in
litt.). Fresh seedlings from native plants attract goats to the dry and
rough lava (Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Further, the host plants
(Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia spp.) of the picture-wing fly in this
final rule appear to be decreasing throughout their ranges due to
impacts from browsing goats (Foote and Carson 1995, p. 369; Science
Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 32; Magnacca 2013, in
litt.). Feral goat browsing alters the picture-wing fly's (Drosophila
digressa) essential microclimate by opening up the canopy, leading to
increased desiccation of soil and host plants, which disrupts the host
plants' life cycle and decay processes, resulting in the disruption of
the picture-wing fly's life cycle, particularly oviposition and larvae
substrate (Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 1, 32). Based on observations of
goats and their scat (Magnacca 2012, pers. comm.) within the Ka Lae
region where the Lua o Palahemo anchialine pool is located, the Service
concludes that goats contribute to the degradation of the anchialine
pool habitat and, thus, are a threat to the anchialine pool shrimp
Vetericaris chaceorum. Feral goats trample and forage on both native
and nonnative plants around and near the pool opening at Lua o
Palahemo, and increase erosion around the pool and sediment entering
the pool.
The destruction or degradation of habitat due to cattle is
currently a threat to five of the described ecosystems (anchialine
pool, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet) on
Hawaii Island and their associated species. Feral cattle eat native
vegetation, trample roots and seedlings, cause erosion, create
disturbed areas into which alien plants invade, and spread seeds of
alien plants in their feces and on their bodies. The forest in areas
grazed by cattle degrades to grassland pasture, and plant cover is
reduced for many years following removal of cattle from an area. In
addition, several alien grasses and legumes purposely introduced for
cattle forage have become noxious weeds (Tomich 1986, pp. 140-150;
Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 29).
The wet forests of Kohala Mountain are reported to have a feral
cattle population of at least 100 individuals that are causing forest
degradation by trampling and browsing, which leads to subsequent
increased nitrogen availability through deposition of feces (Stone
1985, p. 253), all of which contribute to the influx of nonnative plant
and animal species (KMWP 2007, pp. 54-55; Laws 2010, in litt.). Feral
cattle are reported from remote regions on Hawaii Island, including the
back of both Pololu and Waipio Valleys (KMWP 2007, p. 55). Feral cattle
are a threat to the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems on Kohala
Mountain where individuals of Cyanea tritomantha, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, and Pritchardia lanigera, and the last wild individual of
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, are reported (PEPP 2010, pp. 59-60; Bio
2011, pers. comm.). According to a 2010 Service report (USFWS 2010, pp.
3-15, 4-86), a herd of 200 to 300 feral cattle roams the Kona unit of
the Hakalau Forest NWR, where individuals of Cyanea marksii are
reported (USFWS 2010, pp. 3-15, 4-86). Field biologists have observed
cattle-induced habitat degradation at all elevations in this refuge
unit, including within the montane wet ecosystem that supports
individuals of Cyanea marksii (PEPP 2007, p. 61; USFWS 2010, pp. 1-15,
2-13, 4-10, 4-58-4-59, 4-82, 4-86; Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Krauss 2012,
pers. comm.). In addition, the host plants (Charpentiera spp. and
Pisonia spp.) of the picture-wing fly Drosophila digressa have
decreased throughout their ranges due to impacts from cattle browsing
in the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems (Science Panel 2005,
pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b, in litt.; Magnacca 2013, in litt.). Feral
cattle browsing alters the picture-wing fly's essential microclimate by
opening up the canopy, leading to increased desiccation of soil and
host plants, which disrupts the host plants' life cycle and decay
processes, resulting in the disruption of the picture-wing fly's life
cycle, particularly oviposition and larvae substrate (Magnacca et al.
2008, pp. 1, 32). According to Palikapu Dedman with the Pele Defense
Fund, observations of feral cattle in the Ka Lae region where the Lua o
Palahemo anchialine pool is located contribute to the degradation of
the anchialine pool habitat (Richarson 2012, in litt.). Feral cattle
trample and forage on both native and nonnative plants around and near
the pool opening at Lua o Palahemo, and increase erosion around the
pool and sediment entering the pool. We therefore conclude that feral
cattle are a threat to the anchialine pool shrimp Vetericaris chaceorum
(Richardson 2012, in litt., pp. 1-2). Further, cattle carcasses have
been observed within the pool at Lua o Palahemo (Kinzie 2012, in
litt.). Due to the steep sides of the pool, animals may fall into the
water, and if they die there, their decomposing bodies could have a
negative impact on the ability of the pool habitat to support V.
chaceorum (Kinzie 2012, in litt.).
The destruction or degradation of habitat due to feral sheep is
currently a
[[Page 64659]]
threat to the montane dry ecosystem on Hawaii Island and its associated
species. Feral sheep browse and trample native vegetation, and have
decimated large areas of native forest and shrubland on Hawaii Island
(Tomich 1986, pp. 156-163; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 65-66). Browsing
erodes top soil, which alters moisture regimes and micro-environments,
and results in the loss of native plant and animal taxa (Tomich 1986,
pp. 156-163; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 65-66). In addition, nonnative
opportunistic plant seeds get dispersed to disturbed forest sites by
adhering to sheep wool coats (Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife
(HDOFAW) 2002, p. 3).
In 1962, game hunters intentionally crossbred feral sheep with
mouflon sheep and released them on Mauna Kea (Tomich 1986, pp. 156-
163). In Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (471
F. Supp. 985 (Haw. 1979)), the Federal court ordered complete removal
of feral sheep from Mauna Kea in 1979, because they were harming the
endangered palila (Loxioides bailleui) by degrading and destroying
palila habitat in the montane dry ecosystem. Throughout the past 30
years, attempts to protect the vegetation of Mauna Kea and the saddle
from sheep have only been sporadically effective (Scowcroft and Conrad
1992, p. 628). Currently, a large feral population surrounds Mauna Kea
and extends into the saddle and northern part of Mauna Loa, including
the State forest reserves, where they trample and browse endangered
plants (Hess 2008, p. 1). At the U.S. Army's Pohakuloa Training Area,
located in the saddle area of the island, biologists have reported that
feral sheep are a threat to the last occurrence of the plant species
Schiedea hawaiiensis, which occurs in the montane dry ecosystem
(Mitchell et al. 2005a; U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp. 27, 34).
Five of the described ecosystems (lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane dry, montane mesic, and montane wet) on Hawaii Island, and
their associated species are currently threatened by the destruction or
degradation of habitat due to mouflon sheep. The mouflon sheep
(mouflon), native to Asia Minor, was introduced to the islands of Lanai
and Hawaii in the 1950s, as a managed game species, and has become
widely established on these islands (Tomich 1986, pp. 163-168; Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, p. 66; Hess 2008, p. 1). In 1968, mouflon were
introduced to Kahuku Ranch (now a unit of HVNP) on Mauna Loa for trophy
hunting. By 2008, mouflon ranged over the southern part of Mauna Loa in
the Kahuku area on adjacent public and private lands (Hess 2008, p. 1).
According to Ikagawa (2011, in litt.), mouflon are found on the slopes
of both Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. Ikagawa (2011, in litt.) also notes
that mouflon and mouflon-sheep hybrids are found from sea level to over
3,280 ft (1,000 m) elevation. Mouflon have high reproduction rates; for
example, the original population of 11 individuals on the island of
Hawaii has increased to more than 2,500 in 36 years, even though
mouflon are hunted as a game animal (Hess 2008, p. 3). Mouflon only
gather in herds when breeding, thus limiting control techniques and
hunting efficiency (Hess 2008, p. 3; Ikagawa 2011, in litt.). Mouflon
are both grazers and browsers, and have decimated vast areas of native
forest and shrubland through browsing and bark stripping (Stone 1985,
p. 271; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63, 66; Hess 2008, p. 3). Mouflon
also create trails and pathways through thick vegetation, leading to
increased runoff and erosion through soil compaction. In some areas,
the interaction of browsing and soil compaction has led to a change
from native rainforest to grassy scrublands (Hess 2008, p. 3). Field
biologists have observed habitat degradation in five of the described
ecosystems (lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, and
montane wet) that support four plants (Cyanea marksii, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, Pritchardia lanigera, and Schiedea hawaiiensis) (Bio 2011,
pers. comm.; Ikagawa 2011, in litt.; Pratt 2011d, in litt.), and the
picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa) (Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.),
in this final rule. Many of the current and proposed fenced exclosures
on Hawaii Island are only 4 ft (1.3 m) in height, as they are designed
to exclude feral pigs, goats, and sheep. However, a fence height of at
least 6 ft (2 m) is required to exclude mouflon sheep, as they can
easily jump a 4-ft (1.3-m) fence (Ikagawa 2011, in litt.). Both the
increased range of mouflon, as well as the lack of adequately protected
habitat, increase the threat of mouflon sheep to additional ecosystems
on Hawaii Island.
Between 2010 and 2011, an unauthorized introduction of axis deer
(Axis axis) occurred on Hawaii, for purposes of big game hunting
(Kessler 2011, in litt.; Aila 2012a, in litt.). Axis deer are primarily
grazers, but also browse numerous palatable plant species, including
those grown as commercial crops (Waring 1996, in litt., p. 3; Simpson
2001, in litt.). They prefer the lower, more openly vegetated areas for
browsing and grazing; however, during episodes of drought (e.g., from
1998-2001 on Maui (Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.)), axis deer move into
urban and forested areas in search of food (Waring 1996, in litt., p.
5; Nishibayashi 2001, in litt.). Like goats, axis deer are highly
destructive to native vegetation and contribute to erosion by eating
young trees and young shoots of plants before they can become
established, creating trails that can damage native vegetative cover,
promoting erosion by destabilizing substrate and creating gullies that
convey water, and by dislodging stones from ledges that cause rockfalls
and landslides and damage vegetation below (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp.
63-64). The unauthorized introduction of axis deer on Hawaii Island is
a concern due to the devastating impacts of habitat destruction by axis
deer in nine ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland
wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff)
on the islands of Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Maui (Mehrhoff 1993, p. 11;
Anderson 2002, poster; Swedberg and Walker 1978, cited in Anderson
2003, pp. 124-125; Perlman 2009, in litt., pp. 4-5; Hess 2008, p. 3;
Hess 2010, pers. comm.; Kessler 2010, pers. comm.; Medeiros 2010, pers.
comm.). As reported on the islands of Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Maui, the
spread of axis deer into nine of the described ecosystems (coastal,
lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic,
montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island will lead to
similar habitat degradation and destruction if the deer are not
controlled. The results from the studies above, in addition to the
confirmed sightings of axis deer on Hawaii Island, suggest that axis
deer will significantly alter these ecosystems and directly damage or
destroy native plants if they become established. Although habitat
degradation due to axis deer has not yet been observed on Hawaii
Island, we believe it is reasonable to assume similar habitat effects
on this island. Based on the prevailing evidence of the documented
impacts to native ecosystems and individual plants on the other
islands, we determine that the expanding population of axis deer on the
Island of Hawaii, while not currently resulting in population-level
effects to native plants, is expected to do so in the future if the
deer are not managed or controlled. See Factor D for further
information regarding State efforts to eradicate this species.
In summary, the 15 species dependent upon the 10 ecosystems
identified in this final rule (anchialine pool, coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland
[[Page 64660]]
wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff)
are exposed to the ongoing threat of feral ungulates (pigs, goats,
cattle, sheep, and mouflon sheep). Additionally, if not adequately
managed or controlled, impacts from axis deer may also become a threat
to these ecosystems in the future. These negative impacts result in the
destruction and degradation of habitat for these 15 native species on
Hawaii Island. The effects of these nonnative animals include the
destruction of vegetative cover; trampling of plants and seedlings;
direct consumption of native vegetation; soil disturbance and
sedimentation; dispersal of alien plant seeds on hooves and coats, and
through the spread of seeds in feces; alteration of soil nitrogen
availability; and creation of open, disturbed areas conducive to
further invasion by nonnative pest plant species. All of these impacts
lead to the subsequent conversion of a plant community dominated by
native species to one dominated by nonnative species (see ``Habitat
Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants,'' below). In
addition, because these mammals inhabit terrain that is often steep and
remote (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 59), foraging and trampling
contributes to severe erosion of watersheds and degradation of streams
(Dunkell et al. 2011, pp. 175-194). As early as 1900, there was
increasing concern expressed about the integrity of island watersheds,
due to effects of ungulates and other factors, leading to the
establishment of a professional forestry program emphasizing soil and
water conservation (Nelson 1989, p. 3).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants
Native vegetation on all of the main Hawaiian Islands has undergone
extreme alteration because of past and present land management
practices, including ranching, the deliberate introduction of nonnative
plants and animals, and agricultural development (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, pp. 27, 58). The original native flora of Hawaii (species that
were present before humans arrived) consisted of about 1,000 taxa, 89
percent of which were endemic (species that occur only in the Hawaiian
Islands). Over 800 plant taxa have been introduced from elsewhere, and
nearly 100 of these have become pests (e.g., injurious plants) in
Hawaii (Smith 1985, p. 180; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 73; Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, p. 45). Of these 100 nonnative pest plant species, over
35 species have altered the habitat of 14 of the 15 species in this
final rule (only the anchialine pool shrimp is not directly impacted by
nonnative plants (see Table 3)).
The most-often cited effects of nonnative plants on native plant
species are competition and displacement. Competition may be for water,
light, or nutrients, or it may involve allelopathy (chemical inhibition
of other plants). Alien plants displace native species of plants by
preventing their reproduction, usually by shading and taking up
available sites for seedling establishment. Alien plant invasions alter
entire ecosystems by forming monotypic stands, changing fire
characteristics of native communities, altering soil-water regimes,
changing nutrient cycling, or encouraging other nonnative organisms
(Smith 1989, pp. 61-69; Vitousek et al. 1987, pp. 224-227).
Nonnative plants pose serious and ongoing threats to 14 of the 15
species (not the anchialine pool shrimp) in this final rule throughout
their ranges by destroying and modifying habitat. They can adversely
impact microhabitat by modifying the availability of light and nutrient
cycling processes, and by altering soil-water regimes. They can also
alter fire regimes affecting native plant habitat, leading to
incursions of fire-tolerant nonnative plant species into native
habitat. Alteration of fire regimes clearly represents an ecosystem-
level change caused by the invasion of nonnative grasses (D'Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The grass lifeform supports standing dead
material that burns readily, and grass tissues have large surface-to-
volume ratios and can dry out quickly (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p.
73). The flammability of biological materials is determined primarily
by their surface-to-volume ratio and moisture content, and secondarily
by mineral content and tissue chemistry (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992,
p. 73). The finest size classes of material (mainly grasses) ignite and
spread fires under a broader range of conditions than do woody fuels or
even surface litter (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The grass
life form allows rapid recovery following fire; there is little above-
ground structural tissue, so almost all new tissue fixes carbon and
contributes to growth (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). Grass
canopies also support a microclimate in which surface temperatures are
hotter, vapor pressure deficits are larger, and the drying of tissues
more rapid than in forests or woodlands (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992,
p. 73). Thus, conditions that favor fire are much more frequent in
grasslands (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73).
Nonnative plants outcompete native plants by growing faster, and
some may release chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plants.
Nonnative plants may also displace native species by preventing their
reproduction, usually by shading and taking up available sites for
seedling establishment (Vitousek et al. 1987, pp. 224-227). These
competitive advantages allow nonnative plants to convert native-
dominated plant communities to nonnative plant communities (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, p. 74; Vitousek 1992, pp. 33-35).
In summary, nonnative plants adversely impact native habitat in
Hawaii, including 9 of the described Hawaii Island ecosystems that
support 14 of the 15 species (not the anchialine pool shrimp), and
directly adversely impact the 13 plant species, by: (1) Modifying the
availability of light through alterations of the canopy structure; (2)
altering soil-water regimes; (3) modifying nutrient cycling; (4)
altering the fire regime affecting native plant communities (e.g.,
successive fires that burn farther and farther into native habitat,
destroying native plants and removing habitat for native species by
altering microclimatic conditions to favor alien species); and (5)
ultimately converting native-dominated plant communities to nonnative
plant communities (Smith 1985, pp. 180-181; Cuddihy and Stone, 1990, p.
74; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73; Vitousek et al. 1997, p. 6).
A summary of the specific impacts of nonnative plant species is
included below. Please refer to the proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October
17, 2012) for a list of nonnative plants organized by their ecosystems,
a detailed discussion of their specific negative effects on the 14
affected Hawaii Island species, and the literature cited for each
nonnative plant species. In particular, we note that we provide
discussions of nonnative plants in coastal, lowland wet, dry cliff, and
wet cliff ecosystems in this rule (below), but the discussions for
nonnative plants in the lowland dry, lowland mesic, montane dry,
montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems can be found in the October
17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928). Based on comments we received on
the proposed rule, we have also added information below regarding the
nonnative plants wedelia, strawberry guava, and skunk weed that pose
threats to three plants, Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana
(threats from wedelia), Cyanea tritomantha (threats from strawberry
guava), and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (threats from skunk weed), in this
final rule.
[[Page 64661]]
Andropogon virginicus may release allelopathic substances
that dramatically decrease native plant reestablishment, and has become
dominant in areas subjected to natural or human-induced fires.
Anemone hupehensis var. japonica has wind-distributed
seeds, and resists grazing because of toxic chemicals that induce
vomiting when ingested.
Angiopteris evecta forms dense stands that displace and
shade out native plants.
Axonopus fissifolius can outcompete other grasses in wet
forests and bogs and outcompetes native plants for moisture.
Buddleia asiatica can tolerate a wide range of habitats,
forms dense thickets, and is rapidly spreading into wet forest and lava
and cinder substrate areas in Hawaii, displacing native vegetation.
Casuarina equisetifolia forms monotypic stands under which
little else grows. It is thought that the roots and needle litter exude
a chemical that kills other plants.
Clidemia hirta forms a dense understory, shades out native
plants, and prevents their regeneration.
Delairea odorata covers and suppresses growth and
germination of native species by carpeting the ground and rooting down
at leaf nodes. This species can also grow in the canopy, where it
smothers native trees.
Digitaria setigera propagates by seeds and runners; a
single flowering stem produces hundreds of seeds.
Ehrharta stipoides creates a thick mat in which other
species cannot regenerate; its seeds are easily dispersed by awns
(slender, terminal bristle-like process found at the spikelette in many
grasses) that attach to fur or clothing.
Erigeron karvinskianus spreads rapidly by stem layering
and regrowth of broken roots to form dense mats, crowding out and
displacing ground-level plants.
Falcataria moluccana can quickly establish in disturbed
and nondisturbed mesic to wet areas. Its rapid growth habit enables it
to outcompete slow-growing native trees by reducing light availability,
and its abundant, high-quality litter alters nutrient dynamics in the
soil.
Grevillea spp. leaves produce an allelopathic substance
that inhibits the establishment of all other plant species underneath
the canopy.
Hedychium spp. form vast, dense colonies, displacing other
plant species, and reproduce by rhizomes where already established. In
addition to outcompeting native plants, Hedychium spp. reduce the
amount of nitrogen in the Metrosideros forest canopy in Hawaii,
impacting the availability of nutrients for native plants.
Heterotheca grandiflora is an opportunistic colonizer that
grows quickly, forms dense stands, and inhibits recruitment of native
plants.
Juncus effusus spreads by seeds and rhizomes, and forms
dense mats that crowd out native plants.
Juncus is a weedy colonizer that can tolerate
environmental stress and outcompete native species.
Juncus planifolius forms dense mats and has the potential
to displace native plants by preventing establishment of native
seedlings.
Lantana camara is aggressive, thorny, and forms thickets,
crowding out and preventing the establishment of native plants.
Leucaena leucocephala is an aggressive competitor that
often forms the dominant element of the vegetation in low-elevation,
dry, disturbed areas in Hawaii.
Plants in the genus Melastoma have high germination rates,
exhibit rapid growth, have possible asexual reproduction, and are
efficient at seed dispersal, especially by birds that are attracted by
copious production of berries. These characteristics enable the plants
to be aggressive competitors in Hawaiian ecosystems.
Melinis repens invades disturbed dry areas from coastal
regions to subalpine forest; dense stands of this species can
contribute to recurrent fires.
Miconia calvescens reproduces in dense shade, eventually
shading out all other plants to form a monoculture.
Omalanthus populifolius has the potential to colonize
entire gulches, displacing and inhibiting the regeneration of native
plants.
Paederia foetida (skunk weed) is a perennial climbing or
trailing vine in the coffee family (Rubiaceae) that can grow to 30 ft
(9 m) long and occurs on Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii Island (Center
for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health (CISEH 2010, in litt.; U.S.
Forest Service 2013, in litt.). It reproduces vegetatively or by seed,
and can invade natural and disturbed areas in Hawaii. It completely
covers and smothers understory vegetation, outcompetes low-growing
plants and small shrubs for light and space, and can form mat-like
sheaths that may cover several acres (CISEH 2010, in litt.; U.S. Forest
Service 2013, in litt.).
Paspalum conjugatum has small, hairy seeds are easily
transported on humans and animals, or are carried by the wind through
native forests, where it establishes and displaces native vegetation.
Passiflora edulis is a vigorous vine that overgrows and
smothers the forest canopy; its fruit encourages rooting and trampling
by feral pigs.
Passiflora tarminiana is now a serious pest in mesic
forest, where it overgrows and smothers the forest canopy. Seeds are
readily dispersed by humans, birds, and feral pigs; fallen fruit
encourage rooting and trampling by pigs.
Pennisetum setaceum is an aggressive colonizer that
outcompetes most native species by forming widespread, dense, thick
mats. This species is also fire-adapted and burns swiftly and hot,
causing extensive damage to the surrounding habitat.
Pluchea spp. are adapted to a wide variety of soils and
sites, tolerate excessively well-drained to poorly drained soil
conditions, the full range of soil textures, acid and alkaline
reactions, salt and salt spray, and compaction. They quickly invade
burned areas, but being early successional, they are soon replaced by
other species. These adaptive capabilities increase the species'
competitive abilities over native plants.
Polygonum punctatum forms dense patches that prohibit the
establishment of native plants after disturbance events.
Prosopis pallida overshadows other vegetation and has deep
tap roots that significantly reduce available water for native dryland
plants. This plant fixes nitrogen and can outcompete native species.
Psidium cattleianum forms dense stands in which few other
plants can grow, displacing native vegetation through competition. The
fruit is eaten by feral pigs and birds that disperse the seeds
throughout the forest.
Rubus argutus displaces native vegetation through
competition.
Rubus ellipticus smothers smaller plants, including native
species.
Rubus rosifolius forms dense thickets and outcompetes
native plant species. It easily reproduces from roots left in the
ground, and seeds are spread by birds and feral animals.
Schefflera actinophylla is shade tolerant and can spread
deep into undisturbed forests, forming dense thickets, as its numerous
seeds are readily dispersed by birds. It grows epiphytically,
strangling its host tree.
Schinus terebinthifolius forms dense thickets in all
habitats, and its red berries are attractive to and dispersed by birds.
The seedlings grow very slowly and can survive in dense shade,
exhibiting vigorous growth when the canopy is opened after a
disturbance, allowing it to displace native vegetation through
competition.
[[Page 64662]]
Senecio madagascariensis can produce abundant seeds each
year that are easily distributed by wind. This combination of long-
range dispersal of its seeds and its allelopathic properties enables
this species to successfully outcompete native plants.
Setaria palmifolia is resistant to fire and recovers
quickly after being burned, outcompeting native vegetation.
Sphagneticola trilobata is a creeping, mat-forming, fast-
growing perennial herb in the sunflower (Asteraceae) family. It is
found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands (Thaman 1999, pp. 1-10) and
is considered one of Hawaii's most invasive horticultural plants. It
has spread throughout the Pacific and in many cases has become a
noxious weed, covering extensive areas in agricultural lands, along
roadsides and trailsides, in open lots, in waste places and garbage
dumps, and at other disturbed sites (Thaman 1999, pp. 1-10; HEAR 2013).
This species can also be found in relatively undisturbed sites along
coastlines, often out-competing native coastal herbaceous species, like
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (Thaman 1999, pp. 1-10).
Cyathea cooperi can achieve high densities in native
Hawaiian forests and displace native species. Understory disturbance by
feral pigs facilitates the establishment of this species, which has
been known to spread over 7 mi (12 km) through windblown dispersal of
spores from plant nurseries.
Tibouchina spp. is naturalized and abundant in disturbed
mesic to wet forest on the islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii.
It forms dense thickets, crowding out all other plant species, and
inhibits regeneration of native plants.
Ulex europaeus spreads numerous seeds by explosive opening
of the pods. It can rapidly form extensive dense and impenetrable
infestations, and competes with native plants, preventing their
establishment.
Nonnative Plants in the Coastal Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that pose a threat to Bidens hillebrandiana
ssp. hillebrandiana, the only plant species in this final rule that
inhabits the coastal ecosystem on Hawaii Island, include the understory
and subcanopy species Pluchea carolinensis (sourbush), P. indica
(Indian fleabane), Lantana camara (lantana), Melastoma spp., and
Sphagneticola trilobata (wedelia) (Perlman and Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio
2011, pers. comm.; Perry 2012, in litt.). These nonnative plants
species are fast growing, and form either thickets or dense mats that
crowd out and prevent establishment of individuals of Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana. Nonnative canopy species that pose
a threat to B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana include Casuarina
equisetifolia (ironwood), which form monotypic stands that prevent the
growth of B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana below by over shading
and accumulation of pine needle litter (Perlman and Wood 2006, in
litt.). In addition, the nonnative grass Pennisetum setaceum (fountain
grass) is a threat to B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (Perlman
and Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio 2011, pers. comm.) because fountain grass
forms dense mats that cover very large areas, thus outcompeting B.
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, in addition to being a notorious
fire-adapted plant that burns swiftly and hot, causing extensive damage
to surrounding habitat. These nonnative plant species pose serious and
ongoing threats to the species B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana,
which depends on this ecosystem.
Nonnative Plants in the Dry Cliff Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that are a threat to Bidens hillebrandiana
ssp. hillebrandiana, the only plant species in this final rule that
inhabits the dry cliff ecosystem on Hawaii Island, include the
understory and subcanopy species Lantana camara, Melastoma spp.,
Pluchea carolinensis, and Sphagneticola trilobata (Perlman and Wood
2006, in litt.; Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Perry 2012, in litt.). These
nonnative plants species are fast growing, and form either thickets or
dense mats that crowd out and prevent establishment of individuals of
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana. Nonnative canopy species
that pose a threat to B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana include
Casuarina equisetifolia and Psidium cattleianum (Perlman and Wood 2006,
in litt.; Bio 2011, pers. comm.), which form monotypic stands that
prevent the growth of B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana below by
over shading and crowding out. In addition, Casuarina equisetifolia
accumulates high levels of pine needle litter that further prevent
understory growth. The nonnative grasses Digitaria setigera and
Pennisetum setaceum pose a threat to this ecosystem (Perlman and Wood
2006, in litt.; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Fountain grass forms dense mats
that cover very large areas, thus outcompeting Bidens hillebrandiana
ssp. hillebrandiana, in addition to being a notorious fire adapted
plant that burns swiftly and hot, causing extensive damage to
surrounding habitat. Digitaria setigera propagates by seeds and
runners, and a single flower stem produces hundreds of seeds, which
crowds out Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, thus preventing
regeneration. These nonnative plant species pose serious and ongoing
threats to Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, which depends on
this ecosystem.
Nonnative Plants in the Lowland Wet Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that are a threat to the 7 of the 13 plant
species (Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda, Platydesma remyi, and
Pritchardia lanigera) in this final rule that inhabit the lowland wet
ecosystem on Hawaii Island include the understory and subcanopy species
Clidemia hirta (Koster's curse), Erigeron karvinskianus (daisy
fleabane), Hedychium gardnerianum, Juncus effusus (Japanese mat rush),
J. ensifolius (dagger-leaved rush), J. planifolius (bog rush),
Melastoma spp., Paederia foetida (skunk weed), Passiflora edulis
(passion fruit), P. tarminiana (banana poka), Polygonum punctatum
(water smartweed), Rubus argutus (prickly Florida blackberry),
R.ellipticus (yellow Himalayan raspberry), R. rosifolius, Cyathea
cooperi (Australian tree fern), Tibouchina herbacea (glorybush), and T.
urvilleana (princess flower) (Wood 1995, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2001,
in litt.; Perlman and Wood 2006, in litt.; Perlman and Perry 2003, in
litt.; Lorence and Perlman 2007, pp. 357-361; PEPP 2007, pp. 1-65; PEPP
2008, pp. 87-111; Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2008,
in litt.; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g; HBMP 2010h;
HBMP 2010i; PEPP 2010, pp. 33-121; Perry 2012, in litt.). These
understory nonnative plant species overcrowd, displace, smother, or
shade out the seven plant species listed as endangered species in this
rule (see above) that occupy the lowland wet ecosystem. Nonnative
canopy species that are a threat to the seven species include
Angiopteris evecta (mule's foot fern), Falcataria moluccana (albizia),
Miconia calvescens (miconia), Psidium cattleianum, and Schefflera
actinophylla (octopus tree) (Palmer 2003, p. 48; HBMP 2010c; HBMP
2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g; HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i; PEPP 2010, p.
62; Lau 2011, in litt.; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.; Pratt 2011a, in
litt.; Price 2011, in litt.). These nonnative canopy species form dense
stands that shade out and over crowd the 7 plant species listed as
[[Page 64663]]
endangered species in this rule (see above) that inhabit the lowland
wet ecosystem. Nonnative grasses that pose a threat to this ecosystem
are Ehrharta stipoides and Setaria palmifolia (palmgrass) (Lorence and
Perlman 2007, pp. 357-361; PEPP 2007, pp. 1-65; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f;
HBMP 2010g), because they form thick mats that prevent growth and
regeneration of the seven plant species listed as endangered species
(see above) in this rule that occupy the lowland wet ecosystem.These
nonnative plant species pose serious and ongoing threats to the seven
species that depend on this ecosystem.
Nonnative Plants in the Wet Cliff Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that pose a threat to the three plant
species (Cyanea tritomantha, Pritchardia lanigera, and Stenogyne
cranwelliae) in this final rule that inhabit the wet cliff ecosystem on
Hawaii Island include the canopy, understory and subcanopy species
Hedychium coronarium, H. gardnerianum, Juncus effusus, Passiflora
tarminiana, Psidium cattleianum, Rubus rosifolius, Tibouchina herbacea,
and T. urvilleana (HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010k; Perry 2012, in
litt.). These understory nonnative plant species overcrowd, displace,
smother, or shade out the three plant species listed as endangered
species in this rule (see above) that occupy the wet cliff ecosystem.
The nonnative grasses Axonopus fissifolius, Ehrharta stipoides,
Paspalum conjugatum, and Setaria palmifolia also pose a threat to the
three species in this ecosystem (HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010k),
because they form thick mats that prevent growth and regeneration.
These nonnative plant species pose serious and ongoing threats to the
three species that depend on this ecosystem.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire
Fire is an increasing, human-exacerbated threat to native species
and native ecosystems in Hawaii. The historical fire regime in Hawaii
was characterized by infrequent, low severity fires, as few natural
ignition sources existed (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91; Smith and
Tunison 1992, pp. 395-397). It is believed that prior to human
colonization, fuel was sparse and inflammable in wet plant communities
and seasonally flammable in mesic and dry plant communities. The
primary ignition sources were volcanism and lightning (Baker et al.
2009, p. 43). Natural fuel beds were often discontinuous, and rainfall
in many areas on most islands was, and is, moderate to high. Fires
inadvertently or intentionally ignited by the original Polynesians in
Hawaii probably contributed to the initial decline of native vegetation
in the drier plains and foothills. These early settlers practiced
slash-and-burn agriculture that created open lowland areas suitable for
the later colonization of nonnative, fire-adapted grasses (Kirch 1982,
pp. 5-6, 8; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 30-31). Beginning in the late
18th century, Europeans and Americans introduced plants and animals
that further degraded native Hawaiian ecosystems. Pasturage and
ranching, in particular, created high fire-prone areas of nonnative
grasses and shrubs (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 67). Although fires
were historically infrequent in mountainous regions, extensive fires
have recently occurred in lowland dry and lowland mesic areas, leading
to grass-fire cycles that convert forest to grasslands (D'Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 77).
Because several Hawaiian plants show some tolerance of fire, Vogl
proposed that naturally occurring fires may have been important in the
development of the original Hawaiian flora (Vogl 1969 in Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, p. 91; Smith and Tunison 1992, p. 394). However, Mueller-
Dombois (1981 in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91) points out that most
natural vegetation types in Hawaii would not carry fire before the
introduction of alien grasses, and Smith and Tunison (1992, p. 396)
state that native plant fuels typically have low flammability. Because
of the greater frequency, intensity, and duration of fires that have
resulted from the introduction of nonnative plants (especially
grasses), fires are now destructive to native Hawaiian ecosystems
(Brown and Smith 2000, p. 172), and a single grass-fueled fire can kill
most native trees and shrubs in the burned area (D'Antonio and Vitousek
1992, p. 74).
Fire represents a threat to four of the species found in the
lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, and montane mesic
ecosystems addressed in this final rule: the plants Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla, Phyllostegia floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis;
and the picture-wing fly (see Table 3). Fire can destroy dormant seeds
of these species as well as plants themselves, even in steep or
inaccessible areas. Successive fires that burn farther and farther into
native habitat destroy native plants and remove habitat for native
species by altering microclimate conditions favorable to alien plants.
Alien plant species most likely to be spread as a consequence of fire
are those that produce a high fuel load, are adapted to survive and
regenerate after fire, and establish rapidly in newly burned areas.
Grasses (particularly those that produce mats of dry material or retain
a mass of standing dead leaves) that invade native forests and
shrublands provide fuels that allow fire to burn areas that would not
otherwise easily burn (Fujioka and Fujii 1980 in Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 93; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 70, 73-74; Tunison et al.
2002, p. 122). Native woody plants may recover from fire to some
degree, but fire shifts the competitive balance toward alien species
(National Park Service (NPS) 1989, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 93).
On a post-burn survey at Puuwaawaa on Hawaii Island, an area of native
Diospyros forest with undergrowth of the nonnative grass Pennisetum
setaceum, Takeuchi noted that ``no regeneration of native canopy is
occurring within the Puuwaawaa burn area'' (Takeuchi 1991, p. 2).
Takeuchi (1991, pp. 4, 6) also stated that ``burn events served to
accelerate a decline process already in place, compressing into days a
sequence that would ordinarily take decades,'' and concluded that in
addition to increasing the number of fires, the nonnative Pennisetum
acted to suppress the establishment of native plants after a fire.
For decades, fires have impacted rare or endangered species and
their habitat (HDOFAW 2002, pp. 1, 4-6; Dayton 2007, in litt.; Joint
Fire Science Program (JFSP) 2009, pp. 1-12; Weise et al. 2010, pp. 199-
220; Kakesako 2011, in litt.). On the island of Hawaii, wildfires are
caused primarily by lava flows, humans, and lightning, all of which are
exacerbated by severe drought and nonnative grasses (e.g., Pennisetum
setaceum) (Dayton 2007, in litt.; JFSP 2009, pp. 1-6; Armstrong and
Media 2010, in litt.; Weise et al. 2010, pp. 199-216; Adkins et al.
2011, p. 17; Hawaii County Major.com-accessed September 7, 2011;
Burnett 2010, in litt.; KHON2, June 6, 2011). Between 2002 and 2003,
three successive lava-ignited wildfires in the east rift zone of HVNP
affected native forests in lowland dry, lowland mesic, and lowland wet
ecosystems (JFSP 2009, p. 3), cumulatively burning an estimated 11,225
ac (4,543 ha) (Wildfire News, June 9, 2003; JFSP 2009, p. 3). These
fires destroyed over 95 percent of the canopy cover in the burned areas
and encroached upon rainforests (i.e., forests in the lowland wet
ecosystem) that were previously thought to have low susceptibility or
[[Page 64664]]
even be relatively immune to wildfires (JFSP 2009, pp. 2-3; Wildfire
News, June 9, 2003). After the fires, nonnative ferns were reported in
the higher elevation rainforests where they had not previously been
observed, and were believed to inhibit the ability of the dominant
native Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) trees to recover (JFSP 2003, pp.
1-2). Nonnative flammable grasses also spread in the area, under the
dead ohia trees (Ainsworth 2011, in litt.), increasing the risk of fire
in surrounding native forested areas. In 2011, the Napau Crater
wildfire, ignited by an eruption at the Kamoamoa fissure in HVNP,
consumed over 2,076 ac (840 ha), including 100 ac (40 ha) of the 2,750-
ac (1,113-ha) east rift zone's special ecological area (Ainsworth 2011,
in litt.; Kakesako 2011, in litt.). Special ecological areas (SEA) are
HVNP's most intact and intensively managed natural systems (Tunison and
Stone 1992, pp. 781-798). The plant Phyllostegia floribunda, in this
final rule, is known from the east rift zone's Napau Crater, in the
lowland wet ecosystem (Belfield 1998, pp. 9, 11-13, 23; Pratt 2007b, in
litt.; HBMP 2010h). In addition, historical records report that the
plant Cyanea tritomantha, which is listed as endangered in this rule,
also occurred in this area, in the same ecosystem; however, the last
survey that reported this occurrence was over 25 years ago (Lamoureux
et al. 1985, pp. 105, 107-108; HBMP 2010h).
Fire is a threat to the Kona (leeward) side of Hawaii Island. In
the past 50 years, there have been three wildfires that burned 20,000
ac (8,094 ha) or more: (1) 20,000 ac (8,094 ha) burned at Puuwaawaa
Ranch in 1985; (2) 20,000 acres (8,094 ha) burned at the U.S. Army's
PTA in 1994; and (3) 25,000 ac (10,117 ha) burned in Waikoloa in 2005
(Thompson 2005, in litt.). The only known occurrence (25 to 40
individuals) of the plant Schiedea hawaiiensis, in this final rule, is
found on PTA, and the 1994 fire burned to within 2 mi (4 km) of this
species (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 34; Evans 2011, in litt.).
Although this fire may seem relatively distant from S. hawaiiensis,
wildfires can travel from 4 to 8 miles per hour (mph) (6.5 to 13
kilometers per hour (kph)), and burn 2.5 ac (1 ha) to 6 ac (2.5 ha) per
minute (the equivalent of 6 to 8 football fields per minute), depending
on the fuel type, wind, and slope of land (Burn Institute 2009, p. 4).
In 2011, a 500-ac (202-ha) wildfire ignited by lightning and fueled by
nonnative Pennisetum setaceum burned within the State's Puu Anahulu
Game Management Area (GMA) and encroached within a quarter-mile (0.5
km) of PTA (KHON2, June 6, 2011). The Puu Anahulu GMA lies just 3 mi (5
km) northwest of the only known occurrence of S. hawaiiensis in the
montane dry ecosystem. Also in 2011, a 120-ac (49-ha) wildfire broke
out near Kaiminani Street (Jensen 2011, in litt.), just north of Hina
Lani Road, in the lowland dry ecosystem, where the largest occurrence
of the plant species Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which is listed
as endangered in this rule, is found. In addition, the threat of fire
to this species is increased by its occurrence in areas bordered by
residential developments, schools, and roads, which provide numerous
ignition sources from the high volume of human traffic. A recent fire
at the Villages of Laiopua subdivision at Kealakehe, known to have been
intentionally set, burned close to an area that supports B. micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla (Knoche 2012, in litt.). Although no B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla individuals were burned, the immediate proximity of the
fire to occupied and unoccupied habitat for this species demonstrates
the threat of fire to B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla in the lowland dry
ecosystem at Kealakehe.
Fire is also a threat to the picture-wing fly Drosophila digressa
at one of its two known locations (the Manuka NAR) due to the ongoing
extreme drought conditions in this region and the resulting
accumulation of dead trees (i.e., fuel load), in the lowland mesic and
montane mesic ecosystems (Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
Throughout the Hawaiian Islands, increased fuel loads and human-
ignited fires caused the average acreage burned to increase five-fold
from the early 1900s (1904 to 1939) to the mid-1900s (1940 to 1976) (La
Rosa et al. 2008, p. 231). In HVNP, fires were three times more
frequent and 60 times larger, on average, from the late 1960s to 1995,
when compared to data spanning 1934 to the late 1960s (Tunison et al.
2001 in La Rosa et al. 2008, p. 231). The historical fire regimes have
been altered from typically rare events to more frequent events,
largely a result of continuous fine fuel loads associated with the
presence of the fire-tolerant, nonnative fountain grass and the grass-
fire feedback cycle that promotes its establishment (La Rosa et al.
2008, pp. 240-241; Pau 2009, in litt.). Extreme drought conditions are
also contributing to the number and intensity of the wildfires on
Hawaii Island (Armstrong and Media 2010, in litt.; Loh 2010, in litt.).
In addition, the combination of El Ni[ntilde]o conditions (see
``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Climate Change,'' below) in
the Pacific, a half-century decline in annual rainfall, and
intermittent dry spells has fueled wildfires throughout all of the main
Hawaiian Islands (Marcus 2010, in litt.). The entire State is
experiencing dry conditions, but Hawaii Island appears to be
significantly impacted (Kodama 2010, in litt.; USDA-FSA 2012, in
litt.).
Fire is a threat to three plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Phyllostegia floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis), and
the picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa), reported from Hawaii
Island's lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, and
montane mesic ecosystems, because individuals of these species or their
habitat are located in or near areas that were burned in previous fires
or in areas at risk for fire due to volcanic activity, drought, or the
presence of highly flammable nonnative grasses and shrubs.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Hurricanes
Hurricanes adversely impact native Hawaiian terrestrial habitat and
exacerbate the impacts resulting from other threats such as habitat
degradation by ungulates and competition with nonnative plants. They do
this by destroying native vegetation, opening the canopy and thus
modifying the availability of light, and creating disturbed areas
conducive to invasion by nonnative pest species (see ``Specific
Nonnative Plant Species Impacts,'' on page 63952 of our October 17,
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928)) (Asner and Goldstein 1997, p. 148;
Harrington et al. 1997, pp. 539-540). Canopy gaps allow for the
establishment of nonnative plant species, which may be present as
plants or as seeds incapable of growing under shaded conditions.
Because many Hawaiian plant and animal species, including the 15
species in this final rule, persist in low numbers and in restricted
ranges, natural disasters, such as hurricanes, can be particularly
devastating (Mitchell et al. 2005a, pp. 3-4), although we do not
consider hurricanes to represent a present threat to Vetericaris
chaceorum.
Hurricanes affecting Hawaii were only rarely reported from ships in
the area from the 1800s until 1949. Between 1950 and 1997, 22
hurricanes passed near or over the Hawaiian Islands, 5 of which caused
serious damage (Businger 1998, pp. 1-2). In November 1982, Hurricane
Iwa struck the Hawaiian Islands, with wind gusts exceeding 100 mph (161
kph), causing extensive damage, especially on the islands of Niihau,
Kauai, and Oahu (Businger 1998, pp. 2, 6). Many forest trees were
[[Page 64665]]
destroyed (Perlman 1992, pp. 1-9), which opened the canopy and
facilitated the invasion of nonnative plants (Kitayama and Mueller-
Dombois 1995, p. 671). Competition with nonnative plants is a threat to
9 of the 10 ecosystems that support all 13 plant species and the
picture-wing fly listed as endangered in this final rule, as described
above in ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants.''
Nonnative plants also compete with the native host plants of the
picture-wing fly.
In addition to habitat destruction and nonnative plant introduction
resulting from hurricanes, high winds and intense rains from hurricanes
can directly kill individual picture-wing flies to the point of
decimating an entire population (Carson 1986, p. 7; Foote and Carson
1995, pp. 369-370). High winds can also dislodge fly larvae from their
host plants, destroy host plants, and expose the fly larvae to
predation by nonnative yellowjacket wasps (see ``Nonnative Western
Yellow-Jacket Wasps,'' under Factor C. Disease or Predation, below)
(Carson 1986, p. 7; Foote and Carson 1995, p. 371).
Since 1950, 13 hurricanes have passed near but not over Hawaii
Island. Eleven of these hurricanes brought heavy rain, strong wind, or
high surf to the island, which caused erosion, flash floods, and other
damage (Fletcher III et al. 2002, pp. 11-17; National Weather Service
et al. 2010, pp. 1-22). In 1994, tropical depression 1C brought over 14
in (36 cm) of rain in just a few days to windward sections of Hawaii
Island (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1994, pp. 4-
5; National Weather Service et al. 2010, pp. 4-5).
Although there is historical evidence of only one hurricane (1861)
that approached from the east and impacted the islands of Maui and
Hawaii (Businger 1998, p. 3), damage from future hurricanes could
further decrease the remaining native plant-dominated habitat areas
that support the 13 plant species and the picture-wing fly (Drosophila
digressa) listed as endangered in this final rule, in 9 of the
described ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff).
Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls,
Landslides, Heavy Rain, Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought
Rockfalls, treefalls, landslides, heavy rain, inundation by high
surf, and erosion damage and destroy individual plants, destabilize
substrates, and alter hydrological patterns that result in changes to
native plant and animal communities. In the open sea near Hawaii,
rainfall averages 25 to 30 in (635 to 762 mm) per year, yet the islands
may receive up to 15 times this amount in some places, caused by
orographic features (physical geography of mountains) (Wagner et al.
1999a, pp. 36-44). During storms, rain may fall at 3 in (76 mm) per
hour or more, and sometimes may reach nearly 40 in (1,000 mm) in 24
hours, causing destructive flash-flooding in streams and narrow gulches
(Wagner et al. 1999a, pp. 36-44). Due to the steep topography of some
areas on Hawaii Island where 4 of the 13 plants listed as endangered in
this final rule remain, erosion and disturbance caused by introduced
ungulates exacerbates the potential for rockfalls, treefalls, and
landslides, which in turn are a threat to native plants. Such events
have the potential to eliminate all individuals of a population, or
even all populations of a species, resulting in a greater likelihood of
extinction due to the lack of redundancy and resilience of the species
caused by their reduced numbers and geographic range.
Rockfalls, treefalls, landslides, heavy rain, inundation by high
surf, and subsequent erosion are a threat to four of the plant species
(Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea
tritomantha, and Cyrtandra wagneri) listed as endangered in this rule
(Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 359; PEPP 2010, p. 52; Bio 2011, pers.
comm.). Monitoring data from PEPP and other field biologists and
surveyors indicate that these four species are threatened by these
events as they are found in landscape settings susceptible to these
events (e.g., lava tubes, stream banks, steep slopes and cliffs). Field
survey data presented by PEPP and other field biologists document that
individuals of Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana that occur on
steep sea cliffs are threatened by rockfalls, landslides, inundation by
high surf, and subsequent erosion; 1 of the 27 known individuals of
Cyanea marksii is threatened by falling rocks and landslides; and
individuals of Cyanea tritomantha are threatened by treefalls (PEPP
2007, p. 52; Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Perry 2012, in litt.). Field survey
data presented by Lorence and Perlman (2007, p. 359) indicate that
heavy rains and subsequent erosion threaten the only known location of
Cyrtandra wagneri on a stream bank in the Laupahoehoe NAR. As Cyrtandra
wagneri is currently only known from a total of eight individuals along
the steep banks of Kilau Stream, heavy rains and erosion could lead to
near extirpation or even extinction of this species by direct
destruction of the individual plants, mechanical damage to individual
plants that could lead to their death, or destabilization of the stream
bank habitat leading to additional erosion.
Two plant species, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Schiedea
hawaiiensis, and the picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa), which are
listed as endangered in this final rule, may also be affected by
habitat loss or degradation associated with droughts, which are not
uncommon in the Hawaiian Islands (HDLNR 2009, pp. 1-6; Hawaii State
Civil Defense 2011, pp. 14-1--14-12; U.S. National Drought Mitigation
Center (NDMC) 2012--Online Archives). Between 1901 and 2011, there have
been at least 18 serious or severe droughts that have impacted Hawaii
Island, including the current drought that began in 2008, and has led
to the island's first ever drought exceptional designation (the highest
drought level rating on the scale) (between March and December of 2010)
(HDLNR 2009, pp. 1-6; Hawaii Civil Defense 2011, pp. 14-1--14-12).
According to the NDMC's drought rating system, most of the island has
been rated as in severe drought since 2008, with extreme drought
ratings intermittently in some portions of the island (NDMC 2012--
Online Archives). Giambelluca et al. (1991, pp. 3-4) compiled
descriptive accounts of drought throughout the Hawaiian Islands between
1860 and 1986, and found that 87 episodes of drought occurred on Hawaii
Island between those years, although some of those episodes occurred
for periods as short as one month. The 2011 winter weather system
brought periods of heavy rain from Kauai to Maui; however, these
systems weakened or moved away from Hawaii Island, leaving the
typically wet windward slopes of the island under moderate drought
conditions (NOAA 2011--Online Climate Data Center). The entire windward
side of Hawaii Island is currently in an abnormally dry state (NDMC
2011--Online Archives; NDMC 2012--Online Archives). As of March 2013,
the U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM) (USDM 2013--Online Database; USDM
2013--Online Archives) continues to report severe drought (a D2 rating-
on a scale ranging from D0 (abnormally dry), D1 (moderate), D3
(extreme), to D4 (exceptional)) along the entire leeward side of Hawaii
Island, with extreme drought in some areas of North Kona and South
Kohala. Drought conditions
[[Page 64666]]
are expected to continue on Hawaii Island (NOAA 2013, in litt.).
Pohakuloa Training Area (the location of the only known individuals
of the plant Schiedea hawaiiensis) was rated as experiencing extreme
drought during the spring of 2011 (Hawaii State Civil Defense 2011, pp.
14-1--14-12), and in 2010, as well as most of north and south Kona.
North Kona, including the lowland dry ecosystem that supports the
largest occurrence of the plant Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, has
been experiencing conditions of extreme to severe drought over the past
few years. One of the two known extant populations of the picture-wing
fly Drosophila digressa is found in the lowland mesic and montane mesic
ecosystems in south Kona, in an area that has also experienced extreme
to severe drought over the past few years. Drought alters the decay
processes of the picture-wing fly's host plants (Charpentiera spp. and
Pisonia spp.) and the entire plant community on which the fly depends.
The ongoing drought in south Kona has resulted in an increasing
accumulation of dead trees in the Manuka NAR, which increases the fuel
load and threat of wildfires in the area where one of the two known
occurrences of the picture-wing fly is found (Magnacca 2011b, pers.
comm.). According to Magnacca (2013, in litt.) almost the entire ohia
(Metrosideros polymorpha) canopy at the Manuka NAR has died over the
past 10 to 20 years, due to prolonged drought. This area previously
received most of its water input from fog interception by the tall ohia
trees rather than rainfall (Magnacca 2013, in litt.). Although the
dominant host plant of the picture-wing fly at this site, Pisonia spp.,
is temporarily experiencing a growth spurt due to increase in sunlight
caused from the ohia dieback, Magnacca believes this increase in
Pisonia spp. seedlings and juveniles is unlikely to be sustained over
time. If these plants survive to maturity, Magnacca doubts the much
drier habitat conditions will be suitable to support the picture-wing
fly (Magnacca 2013, in litt.). Monitoring data collected in HVNP during
a drought period between 1981 and 1982 suggest that drought was
associated with a reduction in the number of picture-wing flies one
year following the drought (Carson 1986, pp. 4, 7).
Severe episodes of drought cannot only directly kill individuals of
a species or entire populations, but drought frequently leads to an
increase in the number and intensity of forest and brush fires (see
``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire,'' above), causing a
reduction of native plant cover and habitat, an increase in nonnative
plant and animal species, and a reduction in availability of host
plants for the picture-wing fly (Giambelluca et al. 1991, p. v;
D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 77-79; HDLNR 2009, pp. 1-6; Hawaii
Civil Defense 2011, pp. 14-1--14-12). Ecosystems altered by drought and
subsequent fires are further altered by the introduction of nonnative
species that outcompete native species for basic life-cycle
requirements (see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative
Plants,'' above). To further exacerbate the situation, nonnative
ungulate patterns may be altered as observed on Maui, where recent
episodes of drought have driven axis deer farther into urban and
forested areas for food, increasing their negative impacts to native
vegetation from herbivory and trampling (Waring 1996, in litt., p. 5;
Nishibayashi 2001, in litt.; Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.). Due to the
recent widespread increase in frequency and intensity of drought on the
island of Hawaii, even the wettest forests on the windward side of the
island may be threatened by long-term drought (JFSP 2009, pp. 1-12).
Prolonged periods of water deprivation caused by drought can also lead
to the direct death of the remaining individuals of the plants Schiedea
hawaiiensis and Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and the picture-wing
fly, possibly leading to extinction of one or more of these species.
Drought is a direct threat to two of the plant species (Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Schiedea hawaiiensis), and the picture-
wing fly (Drosophila digressa), which are listed as endangered in this
final rule, as discussed above.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also
may be used (Le Treut et al. 2007, pp. 93-127). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (Le
Treut et al. 2007, pp. 93-127). Various types of changes in climate can
have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be
positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time,
depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the
effects of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat
fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use
our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including
uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.
Climate change will be a particular challenge for the conservation
of biodiversity because the introduction and interaction of additional
stressors may push species beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy
2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic implications of climate change and
habitat fragmentation are the most threatening facet of climate change
for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4).
The magnitude and intensity of the impacts of global climate change
and increasing temperatures on native Hawaiian ecosystems are unknown.
Currently, there are no climate change studies that specifically
address impacts to the Hawaii Island ecosystems discussed here or the
15 species at issue in this rule. Based on the best available
information, climate change impacts could lead to the loss of native
species that comprise the communities in which the 15 species occur
(Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et
al. 2002, pp. 14,246-14,248; Allen et al. 2010, pp. 660-662; Sturrock
et al. 2011, p. 144; Towsend et al. 2011, p. 15; Warren 2011, pp. 221-
226). In addition, weather regime changes (droughts, floods) will
likely result from increased annual average temperatures related to
more frequent El Ni[ntilde]o episodes in Hawaii (Giambelluca et al.
1991, p. v). Future changes in precipitation and the forecast of those
changes are highly uncertain because they depend, in part, on how the
El Ni[ntilde]o-La Ni[ntilde]a weather cycle (a disruption of the ocean
atmospheric system in the tropical Pacific having important global
consequences for weather and climate) might change (State of Hawaii
1998, pp. 2-10). The 15 species in this final rule may be especially
vulnerable to extinction due to anticipated environmental changes that
may result from global climate change, due to their small population
size and highly restricted ranges. Environmental changes that may
affect these species are expected to include habitat loss or alteration
and changes in disturbance regimes (e.g., storms and hurricanes). The
probability of a species going extinct as a result of these factors
increases when its range is restricted,
[[Page 64667]]
habitat decreases, and population numbers decline (IPCC 2007, p. 8).
The 15 species have limited environmental tolerances, limited ranges,
restricted habitat requirements, small population sizes, and low
numbers of individuals. Therefore, we would expect these species to be
particularly vulnerable to projected environmental impacts that may
result from changes in climate, and subsequent impacts to their
habitats (e.g., Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; Still et al. 1999, p.
610; Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246-14,248). We believe changes in
environmental conditions that may result from climate change may impact
these 15 species and their habitat, and we do not anticipate a
reduction in this potential threat in the near future.
Climate Change and Ambient Temperature
The average ambient air temperature (at sea level) is projected to
increase by about 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (2.3 degrees
Centigrade ([deg]C)) with a range of 2.7 [deg]F to 6.7 [deg]F (1.5
[deg]C to 3.7 [deg]C) by 2100 worldwide (Trenberth et al. 2007, pp.
235-336). These changes would increase the monthly average temperature
of the Hawaiian Islands from the current value of 74 [deg]F (23.3
[deg]C) to between 77 [deg]F and 86 [deg]F (25 [deg]C and 30 [deg]C).
Historically, temperature has been rising over the last 100 years, with
the greatest increase after 1975 (Alexander et al. 2006, pp. 1-22;
Giambelluca et al. 2008, p. 1). The rate of increase at low elevation
(0.16 [deg]F; 0.09 [deg]C) per decade is below the observed global
temperature rise of 0.32 [deg]F (0.18 [deg]C) per decade (Trenberth et
al. 2007, pp. 235-336). However, at high elevations, the rate of
increase (0.48 [deg]F (0.27 [deg]C) per decade) greatly exceeds the
global rate (Trenberth et al. 2007, pp. 235-336).
Overall, the daily temperature range in Hawaii is decreasing,
resulting in a warmer environment, especially at higher elevations and
at night. In the main Hawaiian Islands, predicted changes associated
with increases in temperature include a shift in vegetation zones
upslope, shift in animal species' ranges, changes in mean precipitation
with unpredictable effects on local environments, increased occurrence
of drought cycles, and increases in the intensity and number of
hurricanes (Loope and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 514-515; U.S. Global Change
Research Program (US-GCRP) 2009, pp. 1-188). In addition, weather
regime changes (e.g., droughts, floods) will likely result from
increased annual average temperatures related to more frequent El
Ni[ntilde]o episodes in Hawaii (Giambelluca et al. 1991, p. v).
However, despite considerable progress made by expert scientists toward
understanding the impacts of climate change on many of the processes
that contribute to El Ni[ntilde]o variability, it is not possible to
say whether or not El Ni[ntilde]o activity will be affected by climate
change (Collins et al. 2010, p. 391).
Globally, the warming atmosphere is creating a plethora of
anticipated and unanticipated environmental changes such as melting ice
caps, decline in annual snow mass, sea-level rise, ocean acidification,
increase in storm frequency and intensity (e.g., hurricanes, cyclones,
and tornadoes), and altered precipitation patterns that contribute to
regional increases in floods, heat waves, drought, and wildfires that
also displace species and alter or destroy natural ecosystems (Pounds
et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; IPCC AR4 2007, pp. 26-73; Marshall et al.
2008, p. 273; U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2008, pp. 1-164;
Flannigan et al. 2009, p. 483; US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-188; Allen et al.
2010, pp. 660-662; Warren 2011, pp. 221-226). These environmental
changes are predicted to alter species' migration patterns, lifecycles,
and ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycles, water availability,
and decomposition (IPCC AR4 2007, pp. 26-73; Pounds et al. 1999, pp.
611-612; Sturrock et al. 2011, p. 144; Townsend et al. 2011, p. 15;
Warren 2011, pp. 221-226). The species extinction rate is predicted to
increase congruent with ambient temperature increase (US-GCRP 2009, pp.
1-188). In Hawaii, these environmental changes associated with a rise
in ambient temperature can directly and indirectly impact the survival
of native plants and animals, including the 15 species in this final
rule, and the ecosystems that support them.
Climate Change and Precipitation
As global surface temperature rises, the evaporation of water vapor
increases, resulting in higher concentrations of water vapor in the
atmosphere, further resulting in altered global precipitation patterns
(U.S. National Science and Technology Council (US-NSTC) 2008, pp. 69-
94; US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-188). While annual global precipitation has
increased over the last 100 years, the combined effect of increases in
evaporation and evapotranspiration is causing land surface drying in
some regions leading to a greater incidence and severity of drought
(US-NSTC 2008, pp. 69-94; US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-188). Over the past 100
years, the Hawaiian Islands have experienced an annual decline in
precipitation of just over 9 percent (US-NSTC 2008, p. 70). Other data
on precipitation in Hawaii, which include sea-level precipitation and
the added orographic effects, show a steady and significant decline of
about 15 percent over the last 15 to 20 years (Chu and Chen 2005, pp.
4,881-4,900; Diaz et al. 2005, pp. 1-3). Exact future changes in
precipitation in Hawaii and the forecast of those changes are uncertain
because they depend, in part, on how the El Ni[ntilde]o-La Ni[ntilde]a
weather cycle might change (State of Hawaii 1998, pp. 2-10).
In the oceans around Hawaii, the average annual rainfall at sea
level is about 25 in (63.5 cm). The orographic features of the islands
increase this annual average to about 70 in (177.8 cm) but can exceed
240 in (609.6 cm) in the wettest mountain areas. Rainfall is
distributed unevenly across each high island, and rainfall gradients
are extreme (approximately 25 in (63.5 cm) per mile), creating both
very dry and very wet areas. Global climate modeling predicts that, by
2100, net precipitation at sea level near the Hawaiian Islands will
decrease in winter by about 4 to 6 percent, with no significant change
during summer (IPCC AR4 2007, pp. 1-73). Downscaling of global climate
models indicates that wet-season (winter) precipitation will decrease
by 5 percent to 10 percent, while dry-season (summer) precipitation
will increase by about 5 percent (Timm and Diaz 2009, pp. 4,261-4,280).
These data are also supported by a steady decline in stream flow
beginning in the early 1940s (Oki 2004, p. 1). Altered seasonal
moisture regimes can have negative impacts on plant growth cycles and
overall negative impacts on natural ecosystems (US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-
188). Long periods of decline in annual precipitation result in a
reduction in moisture availability; an increase in drought frequency
and intensity; and a self-perpetuating cycle of nonnative plants, fire,
and erosion (US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-188; Warren 2011, pp. 221-226) (see
``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire,'' above). These impacts
may negatively affect the 15 species in this final rule and the 10
ecosystems that support them.
Climate Change, and Tropical Cyclone Frequency and Intensity
A tropical cyclone is the generic term for a medium-scale to large-
scale, low-pressure storm system over tropical or subtropical waters
with organized convection (i.e., thunderstorm activity) and definite
cyclonic surface wind circulation (counterclockwise direction in the
Northern Hemisphere) (Holland
[[Page 64668]]
1993, pp. 1-8). In the Northeast Pacific Ocean, east of the
International Date Line, once a tropical cyclone reaches an intensity
of winds of at least 74 mi per hour (33 m per second), it is considered
a hurricane (Neumann 1993, pp. 1-2). Climate modeling has projected
changes in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity due to global
warming over the next 100 to 200 years (Vecchi and Soden 2007, pp.
1,068-1,069, Figures 2 and 3; Emanuel et al. 2008, p. 360, Figure 8; Yu
et al. 2010, p. 1,371, Figure 14). The frequency of hurricanes
generated by tropical cyclones is projected to decrease in the central
Pacific (e.g., the main and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands) while storm
intensity (strength) is projected to increase by a few percent over
this period (Vecchi and Soden 2007, pp. 1,068-1,069, Figures 2 and 3;
Emanuel et al. 2008, p. 360, Figure 8; Yu et al. 2010, p. 1,371, Figure
14). There are no climate model predictions for a change in the
duration of Pacific tropical cyclone storm season (which generally runs
from May through November).
For more information on this topic, see ``Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Hurricanes,'' above.
Climate Change, and Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Inundation
On a global scale, sea level is rising as a result of thermal
expansion of warming ocean water; the melting of ice sheets, glaciers,
and ice caps; and the addition of water from terrestrial systems
(Climate Institute 2011, in litt.). Sea level rose at an average rate
of 0.1 in (1.8 mm) per year between 1961 and 2003 (IPCC 2007, pp. 30-
73), and the predicted increase by the end of this century, without
accounting for ice sheet flow, ranges from 0.6 ft to 2.0 ft (0.18 m to
0.6 m) (IPCC AR4 2007, p. 30). When ice sheet and glacial melt are
incorporated into models the average estimated increase in sea level by
the year 2100 is approximately 3 to 4 ft (0.9 to 1.2 m), with some
estimates as high as 6.6 ft (2.0 m) to 7.8 ft (2.4 m) (Rahmstorf 2007,
pp. 368-370; Pfeffer et al. 2008, p. 1,340; Fletcher 2009, p. 7; US-
GCRP 2009, p. 18). The species Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana occurs within the coastal ecosystem. Although there is
no specific data available on how sea-level rise and coastal inundation
will impact this species, its occurrence in close proximity to the
coastline places it at risk of the threat of sea-level rise and coastal
inundation due to climate change. In addition, the anchialine pool
ecosystem lies within the coastal ecosystem, and although there are no
specific data available on how sea-level rise and coastal inundation
will impact the anchialine pool shrimp, it is reasonable to conclude
that potential impacts from sea-level rise and coastal inundation may
include: (1) Complete inundation of pools and therefore elimination of
entire anchialine pool habitats, particularly at Manuka; (2) an
increase in the likelihood of exposure to predatory native marine fish
not normally found in the anchialine pool ecosystem; and (3) powerful
storm surf and rubble resulting from the predicted increase in storm
intensity that can obliterate pools, create blockage and seal off the
connection to the ocean, or interfere with the subterranean passages
below.
In summary, increased interannual variability of ambient
temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, and sea-level rise and
inundation would provide additional stresses on the 10 ecosystems and
the 15 associated species in this final rule because they are highly
vulnerable to disturbance and related invasion of nonnative species.
The probability of a species going extinct as a result of such factors
increases when its range is restricted, habitat decreases, and
population numbers decline (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-11). In addition, these 15
species are at a greater risk of extinction due to the loss of
redundancy and resiliency created by their limited ranges, restricted
habitat requirements, small population sizes, or low numbers of
individuals. Therefore, we expect these 15 species to be particularly
vulnerable to projected environmental impacts that may result from
changes in climate and subsequent impacts to their habitats (e.g.,
Loope and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 504-505; Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-
612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246-14,248;
Giambelluca and Luke 2007, pp. 13-18). Based on the above information,
we conclude that changes in environmental conditions that result from
climate change have the potential to negatively impact the 15 species
in this final rule, and exacerbate other threats. We have concluded
from the available data that this potential threat will likely increase
in the near future.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Sedimentation
Anchialine pool habitats can gradually disappear when organic and
mineral deposits from aquatic production and wind-blown materials
accumulate through a process known as senescence (Maciolek and Brock
1974, p. 3; Brock 2004, pp. 11, 35-36). Conditions promoting rapid
senescence are known to include an increased amount of sediment
deposition, good exposure to light, shallowness, and a weak connection
with the water table, resulting in sediment and detritus accumulating
within the pool instead of being flushed away with tidal exchanges and
groundwater flow (Maciolek and Brock 1974, p. 3; Brock 2004, pp. 11,
35-36).
Based upon what we know about healthy anchialine pool systems
(Brock 2004, pp. 11, 35-36), one or more factors, combined with
increased sedimentation, are degrading the health of the Lua o Palahemo
pool system, one of the two known locations of Vetericaris chaceorum.
First, sedimentation in the water column is reducing the capacity of
the pool to produce adequate cyanobacteria and algae to support some of
the pool's herbivorous hypogeal species. A decreased food supply (i.e.,
a reduction in cyanobacteria and algae) will lead to a lower abundance
of herbivorous hypogeal shrimp species as well as a lower abundance of
the known carnivorous species, Metabetaeus lohena, and possibly V.
chaceorum.
Second, increased sedimentation in Lua o Palahemo is overloading
the capacity of the pool and lava tube below to adequately flush water
to maintain the water quality needed to support the micro-organisms
that are fed upon by several of the pool's shrimp species (e.g.,
Calliasmata pholidota, Halocaridina palahemo, Halocaridina rubra, and
Procaris hawaiiana) and their associated shrimp predators, Antecaridina
lauensis and V. chaceorum (Brock 2004, pp. 10-11, 16).
Third, increased sedimentation and the inability of the pool system
to adequately flush its waters are either diminishing or preventing
migration and recolonization of the pool by the hypogeal shrimp species
from the surrounding porous watertable bedrock. In other words, this
lack of porosity is affecting the movement of shrimp to and from food
resources, and the accumulating sediment and detritus reduce
productivity within the pool. This reduction in productivity reduces
the carrying capacity of the habitat to support hypogeal shrimp like V.
chaceorum, which is listed as endangered in this final rule (Brock
2004, p. 10). Indeed, Brock (2004, p. 16) has established that pool
productivity and shrimp presence are interdependent. In some cases, a
pool that loses its shrimp populations due, for example, to the
introduction of nonnative fish, more quickly loses its capacity to
support shrimp in the future as a result of excessive buildup of algae
and cyanobacterial mats that block and impede the pool's ability to
flush and
[[Page 64669]]
maintain necessary water quality (Brock 2004, p. 16).
During a dive survey in 1985, visibility within the lava tube
portion of Lua o Palahemo was as great as 20 m (66 ft) (Kinsley and
Williams 1986, pp. 417-437). During this dive survey, Kensley and
Williams (1986, p. 418) estimated that other species of hypogeal shrimp
co-occurring with V. chaceorum numbered in the tens of thousands for
Halocaridina sp., in the thousands for Procaris hawaiiana, and less
than 100 for Calliasmata sp. By 2010, visibility had been reduced to 8
cm (3 in) within the pool itself, and underwater video taken during the
survey shows continuous clouds of thick sediment and detritus within
the water column below the pool (Wada 2010, in litt.). During this
survey, only one P. hawaiiana individual was trapped, and seven others
were observed in the video footage. No other species of shrimp,
including V. chaceorum, were observed during the 2010 survey (Wada
2010, in litt.). Kensley and Williams (1986, p. 426) reported fragments
of crustaceans, including P. hawaiiana, in the gut contents of V.
chaceorum. While P. hawaiiana occurs in other anchialine pool habitats
on Hawaii Island and Maui, V. chaceorum is currently only known from
Lua o Palahemo and four pools at Manuka. A reduction in the abundance
of P. hawaiiana in one of the two known locations of V. chaceorum
indicates a loss of food resources for V. chaceorum, although further
research is needed to confirm this.
During the 2010 survey, it was discovered that a possible partial
collapse of the interior rock walls of Lua o Palahemo pool had
occurred, and this collapse caused the difficulty experienced by the
survey team to survey (via snorkeling) to any depth below the pool's
surface (Wada 2010, in litt.). This collapse also contributed to the
reduced flushing in the pool portion of Lua o Palahemo, leading to an
accumulation of sediment and detritus in the pool. This accumulation of
sediment is reducing both food productivity (i.e., reduce the abundance
and availability of other species of hypogeal shrimp co-occurring with
V. chaceorum) and the ability of V. chaceorum and other species of
hypogeal shrimp co-occurring with V. chaceorum to move between the pool
and the water table, thus leading to a reduction of their numbers
within the pool. Although a recent 2012 survey conducted at Lua o
Palahemo (Wada et al 2012, in litt.) reported that water visibility had
improved since 2010 (Wada 2010, in litt.), particularly from 11 ft (3.5
m) below the surface, neither V. chaceorum nor species of Halocaridina,
which were reported in the tens of thousands in 1985, were observed
(Wada et al. 2012, in litt.). The Service concludes that degradation of
Lua o Palahemo by senescence from sedimentation is an ongoing threat to
the continued existence of V. chaceorum by degrading the conditions of
one of only two known locations of anchialine pools that support this
species and by reducing available food resources (Brock 2004, pp. 10-
11, 16; Sakihara 2012, in litt.). Sedimentation is not reported to pose
a threat to V. chaceorum in the pools at Manuka.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range
There are no approved habitat conservation plans (HCPs), candidate
conservation agreements (CCAs), or safe harbor agreements (SHAs) that
specifically address these 15 species and threats from habitat
destruction or modification. We acknowledge that in the State of Hawaii
there are several voluntary conservation efforts that may be helping to
ameliorate the threats to the 15 species listed as endangered in this
final rule due to habitat destruction and modification by nonnative
species, fire, natural disasters, and climate change, and the
interaction of these threats. However, these efforts are overwhelmed by
the number of threats, the extent of these threats across the
landscape, and the lack of sufficient resources (e.g., funding) to
control or eradicate them from all areas where these 15 species occur
now or occurred historically. Some of the voluntary conservation
efforts include the 11 island-based watershed partnerships, including
the 3 partnerships on Hawaii Island (Three Mountian Alliance (TMA),
Kohala Watershed Partnership (KWP), and the Mauna Kea Watershed
Alliance (MKWA)). These partnerships are voluntary alliances of public
and private landowners ``committed to the common value of protecting
forested watersheds for water recharge, conservation, and other
ecosystem services through collaborative management'' (http://hawp.org/partnerships). Most of the ongoing conservation management actions
undertaken by the watershed partnerships address threats to upland
habitat from nonnative species (e.g., feral ungulates, nonnative
plants) and may include fencing, ungulate removal, and outplanting of
native as well as rare, native species on lands within the partnership.
Funding for the watershed partnerships is provided through a variety of
State and Federal sources, public and private grants, and in-kind
services provided by the partners or volunteers.
Current watershed partnership projects on Hawaii Island that will
benefit one or more of the 15 species listed as endangered in this
final rule include both the building of new fenced exclosures and the
maintenance of existing exclosures to exclude feral ungulates. The TMA
is preparing to build a fenced exclosure of approximately 12,000 ac
(4,856 ha) in the Kau FR bordering the Kahuku Unit of HVNP (Big Island
Video News, May 23, 2012) in an area where several occurrences of
Pittosporum hawaiiense are known (Pratt 2011d, in litt.). At least some
individuals of P. hawaiiense will be protected from direct impacts from
feral pigs, cattle, mouflon, and axis deer, although the exact number
of P. hawaiiense individuals that will be within the exclosure is
unknown. In addition, control of nonnative plants (e.g., Clidemia
hirta, Hedychium gardnerianum, Psidium cattleianum, Rubus ellipticus,
Setaria palmifolia, Cyathea cooperi, and Tibouchina spp.) will be
conducted within the fenced exclosure (Cole 2013, in litt.). The TMA is
also working with the Plant Extinction Prevention Program (see below)
on nonnative ungulate and nonnative plant removal in a 270-ac (109-ha)
exclosure in the Puu Makaala NAR where one occurrence of Cyanea
tritomantha and the last individual of Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei
are known (Ball 2013, pers. comm.). The KWP is constructing a 700-ac
(283-ha) fenced exclosure in the Kohala Mountains in an area where
individuals of Pritchardia lanigera are known. Completion of this fence
is expected in 2016 (Ball 2013, pers. comm.; Purell 2013, in litt.).
This exclosure will provide protection to individuals of P. lanigera
from ungulates once the fence is completed and ungulates are removed
within the fence. In addition, the KWP plans to control nonnative
plants (i.e., Hedychium gardnerianum and Psidium cattleianum) within
the exclosure (Purell 2013, in litt.).
The State of Hawaii's Plant Extinction Prevention (PEP) Program
supports conservation of plant species by securing seeds or cuttings
(with permission from the State, Federal, or private landowners) from
the rarest and most critically endangered native species for
propagation and outplanting (http://pepphi.org). The PEP Program
focusses primarily on species that have fewer than 50 plants remaining
in the wild. Funding for this program is from the State of Hawaii,
Federal agencies (e.g., Service), and public and private grants. The
PEP Program collects,
[[Page 64670]]
propagates, and outplants rare plant species on State, Federal, and
private lands (with permission) in areas where the species currently
and historically occurred, and in species-appropriate habitat. The PEP
Program collects, propagates, or outplants eight plant species that are
listed as endangered in this final rule (Cyanea marksii, Cyrtandra
wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma
remyi, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, S. hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne
cranwelliae) (PEPP 2012, pp. 1-6, 37-43). However, only 2 of these 8
species (Cyrtandra wagneri and Platydesma remyi) were monitored and
checked for possible collection material in 2012 (PEPP 2012, pp. 55,
89). The PEP program is currently assisting TNC by maintaining sections
of the Kona Hema Preserve (see below) (Yoshioka 2013, pers. comm.).
Overall, the program has not yet been able to directly address broad-
scale habitat threats to plants by invasive species.
Voluntary conservation actions undertaken by TNC on one (Kona Hema
Preserve) of their three preserves on Hawaii Island provide a
conservation benefit to individuals of the plants Phyllostegia
floribunda and Pittosporum hawaiiense, which are listed as endangered
in this final rule, that are in a fenced exclosure (the fence provides
protection from mouflon, feral pigs, and cattle) (Ball 2013, pers.
comm.). In addition, TNC is a member of two watershed partnerships, KWP
and TMA.
Voluntary conservation actions undertaken by several private
landowners (Kamehameha Schools; Kaloko Properties Corporation, Stanford
Carr Development (SCD)--Takeshi Sekiguchi Associates (TSA) Kaloko
Makai, LLC, and Takeshi Sekiguchi Associates (TSA) Corporation; Lanihau
Properties; Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC; and DHHL) are described in
our October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928). These conservation
actions provide a conservation benefit and ameliorate some of the
threats from nonnative species and wildfire to the plant Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which is listed as endangered in this final
rule. In addition, at least 400 individuals of B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla have been propagated for the privately owned Koloko Makai
Dryland Forest Preserve, and there are currently 300 surviving
outplanted individuals (Hawaii Forest Institute 2013, in litt.). Other
private landowners are engaged in, or initiating, voluntary
conservation actions on their lands, including fencing to exclude
ungulates, controlling nonnative plants, and propagation and
outplanting of native plant species including B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla. These private landowners include the Queen Liliuokalani
Trust and the Waikoloa Village Association in partnership with the
Waikoloa Dry Forest Initiative (Waikoloa Village Outdoor Circle 2009;
Queen Liliuokalani Trust 2013, pers. comm.). The conservation actions
provided by these landowners ameliorate some of the threats from
nonnative plant species, ungulates, and fire to B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla. In addition, with help from the Hawaii Forest Industry
Association (HFIA), individuals of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
have been propagated and outplanted within the privately owned 70-ac
(28-ha) Kaupulehu Dry Forest Preserve, as well as at Koloko-Honokohau
National Historical Park (Ball 2013, pers. comm.). According to HFIA
(2009, p. 2) and DHHL (2013, in litt.), DHHL's Aupaka Preserve and
Uhiuhi Preserve, two of four described in the Laiopua Plant Mitigation
and Preserve Restoration Plan, will benefit several listed plant
species as well as B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which is listed as
endangered in this final rule, by removing nonnative plant species,
outplanting associated native plant species found in the lowland dry
ecosystem, and maintaining a system of firebreaks (Leonard Bisel
Associates, LLC, and Geometrician Associates 2008, pp. 36-46).
Summary of Habitat Destruction and Modification
The threats to the habitats of each of the 15 species in this final
rule are occurring throughout the entire range of each of the species,
except where noted above. These threats include land conversion by
agriculture and urbanization, nonnative ungulates and plants, fire,
natural disasters, environmental changes resulting from climate change,
sedimentation, and the interaction of these threats. While the
conservation measures described above are a step in the right direction
toward addressing the threats to the 15 species, due to the pervasive
and expansive nature of the threats resulting in habitat degradation,
these measures are insufficient across the landscape and in effort to
eliminate these threats to any of the 15 species in this final rule.
Development and urbanization of lowland dry habitat on Hawaii
Island represents a serious and ongoing threat to Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla because of loss and degradation of habitat.
The effects from ungulates are ongoing because ungulates currently
occur in all of the 10 ecosystems that support the 15 species in this
final rule. The threat posed by introduced ungulates to the species and
their habitats in this final rule that occur in these 10 ecosystems
(see Table 3) is serious, because they cause: (1) Trampling and grazing
that directly impact the plant communities, which include all 13 of the
plant species listed as endangered in this rule, and impact the host
plants used by the picture-wing fly for shelter, foraging, and
reproduction; (2) increased soil disturbance, leading to mechanical
damage to individuals of the 13 plant species listed as endangered in
this final rule, and also plants used by the picture-wing fly for
shelter, foraging, and reproduction; (3) creation of open, disturbed
areas conducive to weedy plant invasion and establishment of alien
plants from dispersed fruits and seeds, which results over time in the
conversion of a community dominated by native vegetation to one
dominated by nonnative vegetation (leading to all of the negative
impacts associated with nonnative plants, listed below); and (4)
increased erosion, followed by sedimentation, affecting the anchialine
pool habitat of V. chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo. These threats are
expected to continue or increase without ungulate control or
eradication.
Nonnative plants represent a serious and ongoing threat to 14 of
the 15 species listed as endangered in this final rule (all 13 plant
species and the picture-wing fly (see Table 3)) through habitat
destruction and modification, because they: (1) Adversely impact
microhabitat by modifying the availability of light; (2) alter soil-
water regimes; (3) modify nutrient cycling processes; (4) alter fire
characteristics of native plant habitat, leading to incursions of fire-
tolerant nonnative plant species into native habitat; (5) outcompete,
and possibly directly inhibit the growth of, native plant species; and
(6) create opportunities for subsequent establishment of nonnative
vertebrates and invertebrates. Each of these threats can convert
native-dominated plant communities to nonnative plant communities
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 74; Vitousek 1992, pp. 33-35). This
conversion has negative impacts on all 13 plant species listed as
endangered here, as well as the native plant species upon which the
picture-wing fly depends for essential life-history needs.
The threat from fire to 4 of the 15 species in this final rule that
depend on lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, and
montane mesic ecosystems (the plants Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Phyllostegia
[[Page 64671]]
floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis, and the picture-wing fly; see
Table 3) is serious and ongoing because fire damages and destroys
native vegetation, including dormant seeds, seedlings, and juvenile and
adult plants. Many nonnative, invasive plants, particularly fire-
tolerant grasses, outcompete native plants and inhibit their
regeneration (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 70, 73-74; Tunison et
al. 2002, p. 122). Successive fires that burn farther and farther into
native habitat destroy native plants and remove habitat for native
species by altering microclimatic conditions and creating conditions
favorable to alien plants. The threat from fire is unpredictable but
increasing in frequency in ecosystems that have been invaded by
nonnative, fire-prone grasses and that are experiencing abnormally dry
to severe drought conditions.
Natural disasters, such as hurricanes, are a threat to native
Hawaiian terrestrial habitat, including 9 of the 10 ecosystems (all
except the anchialine pool ecosystem) addressed here, and the 13 plant
species listed as endangered in this final rule, because they result in
direct impacts to ecosystems and individual plants by opening the
forest canopy, modifying available light, and creating disturbed areas
that are conducive to invasion by nonnative pest plants (Asner and
Goldstein 1997, p. 148; Harrington et al. 1997, pp. 346-347). In
addition, hurricanes are a threat to the picture-wing fly species in
this rule because strong winds and intense rainfall can kill individual
host plants, and can dislodge individual flies and their larvae from
their host plants and deposit them on the ground, where they may be
crushed by falling debris or eaten by nonnative wasps and ants. The
impacts of hurricanes and other stochastic natural events can be
particularly devastating to 14 of the 15 species (all except the
anchialine pool shrimp) because, as a result of other threats, they now
persist in low numbers or occur in restricted ranges and are therefore
less resilient to such disturbances, rendering them highly vulnerable.
Furthermore, a particularly destructive hurricane holds the potential
of driving a localized endemic species to extinction in a single event.
Hurricanes pose an ongoing and ever-present threat because they are
unpredictable and can happen at any time.
Rockfalls, treefalls, landsides, heavy rain, inundation by high
surf, and erosion are a threat to four of the species in this final
rule (the plants Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea
marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, and Cyrtandra wagneri; see Table 3) by
destabilizing substrates, damaging and destroying individual plants,
and altering hydrological patterns, which result in habitat destruction
or modification and changes to native plant and animal communities.
Drought adversely impacts two plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla and Schiedea hawaiiensis) and the picture-wing fly
(Drosophila digressa) by the loss or degradation of habitat due to
death of individual native plants and host tree species, as well as an
increase in forest and brush fires. These threats are serious and
unpredictable, and have the potential to occur at any time.
Changes in environmental conditions that may result from global
climate change include increasing temperatures, decreasing
precipitation, increasing storm intensities, and sea-level rise and
coastal inundation. The consequent impacts on the 15 species listed as
endangered in this final rule are related to changes in microclimatic
conditions in their habitats. These changes have the potential to cause
the loss of native species, including the 15 species being listed as
endangered in this final rule, due to direct physiological stress, the
loss or alteration of habitat, or changes in disturbance regimes (e.g.,
droughts, fire, storms, and hurricanes).
Sedimentation of the Lua o Palahemo pool system is a threat to the
anchialine pool shrimp (Vetericaris chaceorum), which is listed as
endangered in this final rule. In particular, the accumulation of
sediment and detritus reduces the abundance of food resources, such as
Procaris hawaiiana and other co-occurring hypogeal shrimp, for V.
chaceorum.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes
The plant species Pritchardia lanigera is threatened by
overcollection for commercial and recreational purposes (Hillebrand
1888, pp. 21-27; Chapin et al. 2004, pp. 273, 278), as discussed below.
We are aware that some species of Hawaiian anchialine pool shrimp are
sold and purchased on the Internet. However, we do not believe that the
anchialine pool shrimp listed as endangered in this final rule is
threatened by overcollection for commercial or recreational purposes
for the following reasons: (1) The remoteness of Lua o Palahemo, one of
two known locations of Vetericaris chaceorum, and the difficulty of
accessing this species within the deeper lava tube portions of the
anchialine pool; and (2) although a second occurrence has now been
confirmed at Manuka throughout the epigeal (open surface) sections of
four pools, V. chaceorum is still considerably less common and much
more elusive than Halocaridina rubra and the other anchialine pool
shrimp species found in these four pools. In addition, there are
prohibitions against collecting from the pools in the natural area
reserve, although the State does not actively monitor the site (Hadway
2013, pers. comm.). We are not aware of any threats to the remaining 12
plant species or the picture-wing fly listed as endangered in this
final rule that would be attributed to overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific or educational purposes.
Pritchardia lanigera
The genus Pritchardia has 28 known species, 14 of which are endemic
to the Hawaiian Islands, and its range is restricted to the Pacific
archipelagos of Hawaii, Fiji, the Cook Islands, Tonga, and Tuamotus
(Chapin et al. 2004, p. 273). Pritchardia palms have been valued as
collectibles for centuries (Hillebrand 1888, pp. 21-27; Chapin et al.
2004, pp. 273, 278). In 1888, botanist Wilhelm Hillebrand noted that,
``. . . one species of Pritchardia in Nuuanu, . . . was completely
exterminated when natives found that the trees were saleable to
amateurs of gardening in Honolulu.'' Pritchardia has become one of the
most widely cultivated ornamental palm genera in the world (Maunder et
al. 2001 in Chapin et al. 2004, p. 278). There is an international
trade in Pritchardia seeds and seedlings that has created a market in
which individual Pritchardia seeds sell for 5 to 35 dollars each
(Chapin et al. 2004, p. 278; Clark 2010, in litt.; http://rarepalmseeds.com). Most seeds sold are cultivated; however, wild
collection of some ``highly-threatened'' species does occur (Chapin et
al. 2004, p. 278). There are over a dozen Internet Web sites that offer
Hawaiian Pritchardia plants and seeds for sale, including Pritchardia
lanigera (e.g., http://www.eBay.com). Based on the history of
collection of endemic Hawaiian Pritchardia plants and seeds, the market
for Hawaiian Pritchardia plants and seeds, and the vulnerability of the
small populations of Pritchardia lanigera to the negative impacts of
any collection, we consider overcollection of Pritchardia lanigera to
pose a serious and ongoing threat, because it can occur at any time,
although its occurrence is not predictable.
Anchialine Pool Shrimp
While we are aware of two collections of the anchialine pool shrimp
[[Page 64672]]
Vetericaris chaceorum for scientific and educational purposes (Kensley
and Williams, 1986, pp. 419-429; Sakihara 2013, in litt.), there is no
information available that indicates this species has ever been
collected for commercial or recreational purposes. Other Hawaiian
anchialine pool shrimp (e.g., opaeula (Halocaridina rubra)) and the
candidate species Metabetaeus lohena (NCN) are collected for the
aquarium market (e.g., http://Fuku-Bonsai.com; http://ecosaqua.com;
http://www.eBay.com; http://www.seahorse.com), including self-contained
aquariums similar to those marketed by Ecosphere Associates, Inc.
(Ecosphere Associates 2011, p. 1). Two of these companies are located
in Hawaii (FukuBonsai and Stockly's Aquariums of Hawaii). Although
other species are collected, the Service lacks sufficient information
to suggest that collection is or is not a threat to V. chaceorum.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific or Educational Purposes
We are unaware of voluntary conservation efforts to reduce
overcollection of Hawaiian Prichardia species, including P. lanigera,
which is listed as endangered in this final rule. There are no approved
HCPs, SHAs, CCAs, memoranda of understanding (MOUs), or other voluntary
actions that specifically address P. lanigera and the threat from
overcollection.
Summary of Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We have no evidence to suggest that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes poses a threat to 12
of the 13 plant species, the picture-wing fly, or the anchialine pool
shrimp in this final rule. The plant species Pritchardia lanigera is
vulnerable to the impacts of overutilization due to collection for
trade or market. Based on the history of collection of endemic Hawaiian
Pritchardia spp., the market for Hawaiian Pritchardia trees and seeds,
and the inherent vulnerability of the small populations of Pritcharidia
lanigera to the removal of individuals (seeds), we consider collection
to pose a serious and ongoing threat to this species.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
We are not aware of any threats to the 13 plant species, anchialine
pool shrimp, or picture-wing fly listed as endangered in this final
rule that are attributable to disease.
Predation and Herbivory
Hawaii's plants and animals evolved in nearly complete isolation
from continental influences. Successful colonization of these remote
volcanic islands was infrequent, and many organisms never succeeded in
establishing populations. As an example, Hawaii lacks any native ants
or conifers, has very few families of birds, and has only a single
native land mammal--a bat (Loope 1998, p. 748). In the absence of any
grazing or browsing mammals, plants that became established did not
need mechanical or chemical defenses against mammalian herbivory such
as thorns, prickles, and production of toxins. As the evolutionary
pressure to either produce or maintain such defenses was lacking,
Hawaiian plants either lost or never developed these adaptations
(Carlquist 1980, p. 173). Likewise, native Hawaiian birds and insects
experienced no evolutionary pressure to develop anti-predator
mechanisms against mammals or invertebrates that were not historically
present on the island. The native flora and fauna of the islands are
thus particularly vulnerable to the impacts of introduced nonnative
species, as discussed below.
Introduced Ungulates
In addition to the habitat impacts discussed above (see ``Habitat
Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates'' under Factor A.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range), introduced ungulates and their resulting impacts are
a threat to the 13 plant species in this final rule by grazing and
browsing individual plants (this information is also presented in Table
3): Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (pigs and goats), B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (pigs and goats), Cyanea marksii (pigs,
cattle, and mouflon), Cyanea tritomantha (pigs and cattle), Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis (pigs), Cyrtandra wagneri (pigs), Phyllostegia floribunda
(pigs), Pittosporum hawaiiense (pigs, cattle, and mouflon), Platydesma
remyi (pigs), Pritchardia lanigera (pigs, goats, and mouflon), Schiedea
diffusa ssp. macraei (pigs and cattle), Schiedea hawaiiensis (pigs,
goats, sheep, and mouflon), and Stenogyne cranwelliae (pigs). In
addition, introduced ungulates are a threat to the picture-wing fly in
this final rule by grazing and browsing individuals of its host plants,
Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia spp. (pigs, goats, cattle, and mouflon).
We have direct evidence of ungulate damage to the 13 plant species
listed as endangered species in this final rule, as well as to the two
host plants of the picture-wing fly listed as an endangered species in
this final rule. Magnacca et al. (2008, p. 32) and others (Maui Forest
Bird Recovery Project 2011, in litt.) found that native plant species
such as the Hawaiian lobelioids (e.g., Cyanea spp.) and plants in the
African violet family (e.g., Cyrtandra spp.) are particularly
vulnerable to pig disturbance. In a study conducted by Diong (1982, p.
160) on Maui, feral pigs were observed browsing on young shoots,
leaves, and fronds of a wide variety of plants, of which over 75
percent were endemic species. A stomach content analysis in this study
showed that 60 percent of the pigs' food source consisted of the
endemic Cibotium (hapuu, tree fern). Pigs were observed to fell plants
and remove the bark from native plant species within the genera
Cibotium, Clermontia, Coprosma, Hedyotis, Psychotria, and Scaevola,
resulting in larger trees being killed over a few months of repeated
feeding (Diong 1982, p. 144). Beach (1997, pp. 3-4) found that feral
pigs in Texas spread disease and parasites, and their rooting and
wallowing behavior led to spoilage of watering holes and loss of soil
through leaching and erosion. Rooting activities also decreased the
survivability of some plant species through disruption at root level of
mature plants and seedlings (Beach 1997, pp. 3-4; Anderson et al. 2007,
pp. 2-3). In Hawaii, pigs dig up forest ground cover consisting of
delicate and rare species of orchids, ferns, mints, lobeliads, and
other taxa, including roots, tubers and rhizomes (Stone and Anderson
1988, p. 137).
In addition, there are direct observations of pig herbivory, on
either the fresh seedlings, fruits, seeds, or leaves, on each of the 13
plant species in this final rule, including Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana (Bio 2011, pers. comm.), B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
(Bio 2011, pers. comm.), Cyanea marksii (PEPP 2010, p. 52; Bio 2011,
pers. comm.), Cyanea tritomantha (HBMP 2010f; PEPP 2010, p. 60),
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (Bio 2011, pers. comm.), Cyrtandra wagneri
(Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 359; PEPP 2010, p. 63), Phyllostegia
floribunda (Perlman and Wood 1993--Hawaii Plant Conservation Maps
database; Perry 2006, in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.; USFWS 2010, p.
4-66), Pittosporum hawaiiense (Bio 2011, pers. comm.), Platydesma remyi
(PEPP 2008, p. 107), Pritchardia lanigera (Wood
[[Page 64673]]
1995, in litt.; HBMP 2010c; Crysdale 2013, pers. comm.), Schiedea
diffusa ssp. macraei (Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 32), Schiedea hawaiiensis
(Mitchell et al. 2005a; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 32; Bio 2011, pers.
comm.), and Stenogyne cranwelliae (HBMP 2010k). According to Magnacca
et al. (2008, p. 32; 2013, in litt.) several of the host plants of
Hawaiian picture-wing flies, including Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia
spp., the two host plants that support the picture-wing fly in this
rule, are susceptible to damage from feral ungulates such as pigs. As
pigs occur in 9 of the 10 ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland
mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff,
and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island, the results of the studies described
above suggest that pigs can also alter these ecosystems and directly
damage or destroy the 13 plant species listed as endangered species in
this final rule, and the two plants that support the picture-wing fly
that is being listed as endangered in this final rule (see above and
Table 3).
Feral goats thrive on a variety of food plants, and are
instrumental in the decline of native vegetation in many areas (Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, p. 64). Feral goats trample roots and seedlings, cause
erosion, and promote the invasion of alien plants. They are able to
forage in extremely rugged terrain and have a high reproductive
capacity (Clarke and Cuddihy 1980, p. C-20; van Riper and van Riper
1982, pp. 34-35; Tomich 1986, pp. 153-156; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p.
64). Goats were observed to browse on native plant species in the
following genera: Argyroxiphium, Canavalia, Plantago, Schiedea, and
Stenogyne (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 64). A study on the island of
Hawaii demonstrated that Acacia koa seedlings are unable to survive due
to browsing and grazing by goats (Spatz and Mueller-Dombois 1973, p.
874). If goats are maintained at constantly high numbers, mature A. koa
trees will eventually die, and with them the root systems that support
suckers and vegetative reproduction. One study demonstrated a positive
height-growth response of A. koa suckers to the 3-year exclusion of
goats (1968-1971) inside a fenced area, whereas suckers were similarly
abundant but very small outside of the fenced area (Spatz and Mueller-
Dombois 1973, p. 873). Another study at Puuwaawaa demonstrated that
prior to management actions in 1985, regeneration of endemic shrubs and
trees in the goat-grazed area was almost totally lacking, contributing
to the invasion of the forest understory by exotic grasses and weeds.
After the removal of grazing animals in 1985, A. koa and Metrosideros
spp. seedlings were observed germinating by the thousands (HDOFAW 2002,
p. 52). Based on a comparison of fenced and unfenced areas, it is clear
that goats can devastate native ecosystems (Loope et al. 1988, p. 277).
Goats seek out seedlings and juveniles of Bidens spp. (Bio 2011,
pers. comm.), and are known to indiscriminately graze on and eat the
seeds of native Hawaiian Pritchardia species (Chapin et al. 2004, p.
274; Chapin et al. 2007, p. 20). The two known occurrences of the plant
Pritchardia lanigera are found in an unfenced area of the Kohala
Mountains, where they are impacted by browsing and grazing by goats and
other ungulates (Warshauer et al. 2009, pp. 10, 24; Laws et al. 2010,
in litt.). Schiedea spp. are favored by grazing goats, and goat
browsing adversely impacts the only known population of the plant
species Schiedea hawaiiensis (Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 32; Chynoweth et
al. 2011, in litt.). In addition, there are direct observations of goat
herbivory, on either the fresh seedlings, fruit, seeds, or leaves, of
four of the plant species in this final rule, including Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (Bio 2011, pers. comm.), B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Knoche 2011, in
litt.), Pritchardia lanigera (Wood 1995, in litt.; Chapin et al. 2004,
p. 274), and Schiedea hawaiiensis (Mitchell et al. 2005a). According to
Magnacca et al. (2008, p. 32) several of the host plants of Hawaiian
picture-wing flies, including the host plants of the picture-wing fly
listed as endangered in this rule (Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia spp.),
are susceptible to damage from feral ungulates such as goats. As goats
occur in nine of the ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic,
lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and
wet cliff) on Hawaii Island, the results of the studies described above
suggest that goats can also alter these ecosystems and directly damage
or destroy four of the plant species being listed as endangered in this
final rule (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, B. hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Pritchardia lanigera, and Schiedea hawaiiensis), and
the two host plants that support the picture-wing fly being listed as
an endangered species in this final rule (see above and Table 3).
Four of the plant species listed as endangered in this final rule
(Cyanea marksii, C. tritomantha, Pittosporum hawaiiense, and Schiedea
diffusa ssp. macraei), and the two host plants that support the
picture-wing fly in this rule (Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia spp.), are
impacted by browsing and grazing by feral cattle. Cattle, either feral
or domestic, are considered one of the most significant factors in the
destruction of Hawaiian forests (Baldwin and Fagerlund 1943, pp. 118-
122). Currently, feral cattle are found only on Maui and Hawaii,
typically in accessible forests and certain coastal and lowland leeward
habitats (Tomich 1986, pp. 140-144).
In HVNP, Cuddihy reported that there were twice as many native
plant species as nonnatives found in areas that had been fenced to
exclude feral cattle, whereas on the adjacent, nonfenced cattle ranch,
there were twice as many nonnative plant species as natives (Cuddihy
1984, pp. 16, 34). Skolmen and Fujii (1980, pp. 301-310) found that
Acacia koa seedlings were able to reestablish in a moist A. koa--
Metrosideros polymorpha forest on Hawaii Island after the area was
fenced to exclude feral cattle (Skolmen and Fujii 1980, pp. 301-310).
Cattle eat native vegetation, trample roots and seedlings, cause
erosion, create disturbed areas conducive to invasion by nonnative
plants, and spread seeds of nonnative plants in their feces and on
their bodies. Cattle have been observed accessing native plants in
Hakalau NWR by breaking down ungulate exclosure fences (Tummons 2011,
p. 4). In addition, there are direct observations of cattle herbivory
on three of the plant species in this rule, including Cyanea marksii
(PEPP 2010, p. 52), C. tritomantha (PEPP 2010, p. 60), and Pittosporum
hawaiiense (Bio 2011, pers. comm.). In addition, although we have no
direct observations, we also consider the plant Schiedea diffusa ssp.
macraei to be susceptible to herbivory by cattle because cattle are
reported to favor plants in the genus Schiedea (Wagner et al. 2005d,
pp. 31-32) and feral cattle still occur in the Kohala Mountains, the
location of the only known individual of this species. Between 1987 and
1994, populations of Schiedea salicaria on West Maui were grazed so
extensively by cattle, all of the individuals of this species in
accessible areas disappeared by 1994 (Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 32).
Cattle are also known to browse Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia spp., the
two host plants that support the picture-wing fly in this final rule
(Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 32; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). As feral
cattle occur in five of the described ecosystems (anchialine pool,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet) on Hawaii
Island, the results of the studies
[[Page 64674]]
described above suggest that feral cattle can also alter these
ecosystems and directly damage or destroy four of the plant species
listed as endangered species in this final rule (Cyanea marksii, C.
tritomantha, Pittosporum hawaiiense, and Schiedea diffusa ssp.
macraei), and the two host plants that support the picture-wing fly
listed as an endangered species in this rule (Charpentiera spp. and
Pisonia spp.) (Table 3).
Feral sheep browse and trample native vegetation, and have
decimated large areas of native forest and shrubland (Tomich 1986, pp.
156-163; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65-66). Large areas of Hawaii
Island have been devastated by sheep. For example, sheep browsing
reduced seedling establishment of Sophora chrysophylla (mamane) so
severely that it resulted in a reduction of the tree line elevation on
Mauna Kea (Warner 1960 in Juvik and Juvik 1984, pp. 191-202). Currently
there is a large sheep-mouflon sheep hybrid population (see ``Habitat
Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates'' under Factor A.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range, above) on Mauna Kea that extends into the saddle and
northern part of Mauna Loa, and there are reports that these animals
are destroying endangered plants (Hess 2008, p. 1). There are direct
observations of feral sheep herbivory on individuals of the only known
occurrence of the plant species Schiedea hawaiiensis at PTA (Mitchell
et al. 2005a; U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 34). As feral sheep occur in
one of the described ecosystems (montane dry) on Hawaii Island, the
results of the studies described above suggest that sheep can also
alter this ecosystem and directly damage or destroy individuals of
Schiediea hawaiiensis (Table 3).
Mouflon sheep graze native vegetation, trample undergrowth, spread
weeds, and cause erosion. On the island of Hawaii, mouflon sheep
browsing led to the decline in the largest population of the endangered
Argyroxiphium kauense (kau silversword, Mauna Loa silversword, or
ahinahina) located on the former Kahuku Ranch, reducing it from a
``magnificent population of several thousand'' (Degener et al. 1976,
pp. 173-174) to fewer than 2,000 individuals (unpublished data in
Powell 1992, in litt., p. 312) over a period of 10 years (1974-1984).
The native tree Sophora chrysophylla is also a preferred browse species
for mouflon. According to Scowcroft and Sakai (1983, p. 495), mouflon
eat the shoots, leaves, flowers, and bark of this species. Bark
stripping on the thin bark of a young tree is potentially lethal.
Mouflon are also reported to strip bark from Acacia koa trees (Hess
2008, p. 3) and to seek out the threatened plant Silene hawaiiensis
(Benitez et al. 2008, p. 57). In the Kahuku section of HVNP, mouflon
jumped the park boundary fence and reduced one population of S.
hawaiiensis to half its original size over a 3-year period (Belfield
and Pratt 2002, p. 8). Other native species browsed by mouflon include
Geranium cuneatum ssp. cuneatum (hinahina, silver geranium), G.
cuneatum ssp. hypoleucum (hinahina, silver geranium), and Sanicula
sandwicensis (NCN) (Benitez et al. 2008, pp. 59, 61). On Lanai, mouflon
were once cited as one of the greatest threats to the endangered
Gardenia brighamii (Mehrhoff 1993, p. 11), although fencing has now
proven to be an effective mechanism against mouflon herbivory on this
plant (Mehrhoff 1993, pp. 22-23). Due to their high agility and
reproductive rates, mouflon sheep have the potential to occupy most
ecosystems found on Hawaii Island, from sea-level to very high
elevations (Hess 2010, pers. comm.; Ikagawa 2011, in litt.). Further,
Ovis spp. are known throughout the world for chewing vegetation right
down to the soil (Ikagawa 2011, in litt.).
Recent research by Ikagawa (2011, in litt.) suggests that the plant
species Pritchardia lanigera occurs within the observed range of
mouflon, and is potentially impacted by mouflon browsing. In addition,
there are direct observations or reports that mouflon sheep browsing
and grazing significantly impact the plant species Cyanea marksii,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, and Schiedea hawaiiensis (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.; Pratt 2011e, in litt.), which are listed as endangered in this
final rule. Further, Charpentiera spp., one of the two host plants that
support the picture-wing fly in this rule, appears to be decreasing
throughout its range due to impacts from mouflon browsing (Science
Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). As mouflon occur in
five of the described ecosystems (lowland wet, lowland mesic, montane
dry, montane mesic, and montane wet) on Hawaii Island, the results of
the studies described above suggest that mouflon sheep can also alter
these ecosystems and directly damage or destroy four plants listed as
endangered species in this final rule (Cyanea marksii, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, Pritchardia lanigera, and Schiedea hawaiiensis), and one of
the two host plants (see above) that support the picture-wing fly
listed as an endangered species in this final rule (Table 3).
The recent introduction of axis deer to Hawaii Island raises a
significant concern due to the reported damage axis deer cause on the
island of Maui (see Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range, above). Most of the
available information on axis deer in the Hawaiian Islands concerns
observations and reports from the island of Maui. On Maui, axis deer
were introduced by the State as a game animal, but their numbers have
steadily increased, especially in recent years on Haleakala (Luna 2003,
p. 44). During the 4-year El Ni[ntilde]o drought from 1998 through
2001, Maui experienced an 80 to 90 percent decline in shrub and vine
species caused by deer browsing and girdling of young saplings. High
mortality of rare and native plant species was observed (Medeiros 2010,
pers. comm.). Axis deer consume progressively less palatable plants
until no edible vegetation is left (Hess 2008, p. 3). Axis deer are
highly adaptable to changing conditions and are characterized as
``plastic'' (meaning flexible in their behavior) by Ables (1977, cited
in Anderson 1999, p. 5). They exhibit a high degree of opportunism
regarding their choice of forage (Dinerstein 1987, cited in Anderson
1999, p. 5) and can be found in all but the highest elevation
ecosystems (subalpine and alpine) and montane bogs, according to
Medeiros (2010, pers. comm.).
Axis deer on Maui follow a cycle of grazing and browsing in open
lowland grasslands during the rainy season (November-March) and then
migrate to the lava flows of montane mesic forests during the dry
summer months to graze and browse native plants (Medeiros 2010, pers.
comm.). Axis deer are known to favor the native plants Abutilon
menziesii (an endangered species), Erythrina sandwicensis (wiliwili),
and Sida fallax (ilima) (Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.). During the driest
months of summer (July and August), axis deer can even be found along
Maui's coastal roads as they search for food. Hunting pressure also
appears to drive the deer into native forests, particularly the lower
rainforests up to 4,000 to 5,000 ft (1,220 and 1,525 m) in elevation
(Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.), and according to Kessler and Hess (2010,
pers. comm.), axis deer can be found up to 9,000 ft (2,743 m)
elevation. On Lanai, grazing by axis deer has been reported as a major
threat to the endangered Gardenia brighamii (nau) (Mehrhoff 1993, p.
11). Swedberg and Walker (1978, cited in Anderson
[[Page 64675]]
2003, pp. 124-125) reported that in the upper forests of Lanai, the
native plants Osteomeles anthyllidifolia (ulei) and Leptecophylla
tameiameiae (pukiawe) comprised more than 30 percent of axis deer rumen
volume. On Molokai browsing by axis deer has been reported on Erythrina
sandwicensis and Nototrichium sandwicense (kului) (Medeiros et al.
1996, pp. 11, 19). Other native plant species consumed by axis deer
include Achyranthes splendens (NCN), Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera
(kookoolau) and B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis (kookoolau),
Chamaesyce celastroides var. lorifolia (akoko), Diospyros sandwicensis
(lama), Geranium multiflorum (nohoanu; an endangered species),
Lipochaeta rockii var. dissecta (nehe), Osmanthus sandwicensis
(ulupua), Panicum torridum (kakonakona), and Santalum ellipticum (laau
ala) (Anderson 2002, poster; Perlman 2009, in litt., pp. 4-5). As
demonstrated on the Islands of Lanai, Maui, and Molokai, axis deer will
spread into nine of the described ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet,
dry cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island if not controlled. The newly
established axis deer partnership (see Factor A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or
Range, above) is currently implementing an axis deer response and
removal plan, and just recently reported their first confirmed removal
on April 11, 2012 (Osher 2012, in litt.). In addition, there is a
proposed revision to the State of Hawaii's HRS 91 (see Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range, above, and Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms, below) that would address the gap in the current
emergency rules authority and expand the ability of State agencies to
adopt emergency rules to include situations that impose imminent
threats to natural resources (e.g., axis deer on Hawaii Island). The
results from the studies above, combined with direct observations from
field biologists, suggest that grazing and browsing by axis deer can
impose negative impacts to the nine ecosystems above and their
associated native plants, including the 13 plant species listed as
endangered species in this final rule, and the two host plants that
support the picture-wing fly (see above) listed as an endangered
species in this final rule, should this nonnative ungulate increase in
number and range on Hawaii Island.
Other Introduced Vertebrates
Rats
There are three species of introduced rats in the Hawaiian Islands:
Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), black rat (R. rattus), and Norway rat
(R. norvegicus). The Polynesian rat and the black rat are primarily
found in the wild, in dry to wet habitats, while the Norway rat is
typically found in manmade habitats, such as urban areas or
agricultural fields (Tomich 1986, p. 41). The black rat is widely
distributed among the main Hawaiian Islands and can be found in a broad
range of ecosystems up to 9,744 ft (2,970 m), but it is most common at
low- to mid-elevations (Tomich 1986, pp. 38-40). While Sugihara (1997,
p. 194) found both the black and Polynesian rats up to 6,972 ft (2,125
m) elevation on Maui, the Norway rat was not seen at the higher
elevations in his study. Rats occur in nine of the described ecosystems
(coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane
mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff), and predation by rats
adversely impacts 11 of the 13 plant species listed as endangered in
this final rule (rats are not a reported threat to the picture-wing fly
or anchialine pool shrimp listed as endangered in this rule) (see Table
3).
Rats impact native plants by eating fleshy fruits, seeds, flowers,
stems, leaves, roots, and other plant parts (Atkinson and Atkinson
2000, p. 23), and can seriously affect regeneration. Research on rats
in forests in New Zealand has also demonstrated that, over time,
differential regeneration as a consequence of rat predation may alter
the species composition of forested areas (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp.
68-69). Rats have caused declines or even the total elimination of
island plant species (Campbell and Atkinson 1999, cited in Atkinson and
Atkinson 2000, p. 24). In the Hawaiian Islands, rats may consume as
much as 90 percent of the seeds produced by some trees, or in some
cases prevent the regeneration of forest species completely (Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, pp. 68-69). All three species of rat (black, Norway,
and Polynesian) have been reported to be a serious threat to many
endangered or threatened Hawaiian plants (Stone 1985, p. 264; Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, pp. 67-69). Plants with fleshy fruits are particularly
susceptible to rat predation, including some of the species listed as
endangered in this rule. For example, the fruits of plants in the
bellflower family (e.g., Cyanea spp.) appear to be a target of rat
predation (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 67-69). In addition to both
species of Cyanea (Cyanea marksii and Cyanea tritomantha), nine other
species of plants in this final rule are adversely impacted by rat
predation: Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers. comm.), Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra
wagneri (Lorence and Perlman 2007, pp. 357-361; Bio 2011, pers. comm.),
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp.
macraei, Schiedea hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, pp. 67-69; Gon III and Tierney 1996, in litt.; Bio 2008, in
litt.; Pratt 2008b, in litt.; Bio 2010, pers. comm.; HBMP 2010c; HBMP
2010f; HBMP 2010j; HBMP 2010k; PEPP 2010, pp. 101, 113; Pratt 2011f, in
litt.; Crysdale 2013, pers. comm.).
Nonnative Fish
In Hawaii, the introduction of nonnative fish, including bait-fish,
into anchialine pools has been a major contributor to the decline of
native shrimp (TNC 1987 cited in Chan 1995, p. 1; Chan 1995, pp. 1, 8,
17-18; Brock and Kam 1997, p. 50; Brock 2004, p. 13-17; Kinzie 2012, in
litt.). Predation by, and competition with, introduced nonnative fish
is considered the greatest threat to native shrimp within anchialine
pool ecosystems (Bailey-Brock and Brock 1993, p. 354; Brock 2004, pp.
13-17). These impacts are discussed further under Factor E. Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence, below.
Invertebrates
Nonnative Slugs
Predation by nonnative slugs adversely impacts 5 of the 13 plant
species (Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
Cyrtandra wagneri, and Stenogyne cranwelliae; see Table 3) in this
final rule through mechanical damage, destruction of plant parts, and
mortality (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 3-51; Joe 2006, p. 10; Lorence
and Perlman 2007, p. 359; Bio 2008, in litt.; Perlman and Bio 2008, in
litt.; HBMP 2010k). On Oahu, slugs have been reported to destroy the
endangered plants Cyanea calycina and Cyrtandra kaulantha in the wild,
and have been observed eating leaves and fruit of wild and cultivated
individuals of Cyanea (Mehrhoff 1995, in litt.; Pratt and Abbott 1997,
p. 13; U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp. 3-34, 3-51). In addition, slugs
have damaged individuals of other Cyanea and Cyrtandra species in the
wild (Wood et al. 2001, p. 3; Sailer and Keir 2002, in litt., p. 3;
PEPP 2007, p. 38; PEPP 2008, pp. 23, 49, 52-53, 57).
[[Page 64676]]
Little is known about predation of certain rare plants by slugs;
however, information in the U.S. Army's 2005 ``Status Report for the
Makua Implementation Plan'' indicates that slugs can be a threat to all
species of Cyanea (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 3-51). Research
investigating slug herbivory and control methods shows that slug
impacts on seedlings of Cyanea spp. results in up to 80 percent
seedling mortality (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 3-51). Slug damage has
also been reported on other Hawaiian plants including Argyroxiphium
grayanum (greensword), Alsinidendron sp., Hibiscus sp., the endangered
plant Schiedea kaalae (maolioli), the endangered plant Solanum
sandwicense (popolo aiakeakua), and Urera sp. (Gagne 1983, pp. 190-191;
Sailer 2002 cited in Joe 2006, pp. 28-34).
Joe and Daehler (2008, p. 252) found that native Hawaiian plants
are more vulnerable to slug damage than nonnative plants. In
particular, they found that the individuals of the endangered plants
Cyanea superba and Schiedea obovata had 50 percent higher mortality
when exposed to slugs when compared to individuals of the same species
that were protected within slug exclosures. Slug damage has been
documented on the plant Stenogyne cranwelliae (HBMP 2010k). As slugs
are found in three of the described ecosystems (lowland wet, montane
wet, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island, the data from the above studies,
in addition to direct observations from field biologists, suggest that
slugs can directly damage or destroy native plants, including five of
the plant species listed as endangered species in this final rule
(Cyanea marksii, C. tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, C. wagneri,
and Stenogyne cranwelliae).
Nonnative Western Yellow-Jacket Wasps
The western yellow-jacket wasp (Vespula pensylvanica) is a social
wasp species native to the mainland of North America. It was first
reported from Oahu in the 1930s (Nishida and Evenhuis in Sherley 2000,
p. 121), and an aggressive race became established in 1977 (Gambino et
al. 1987, p. 170). This species is now particularly abundant between
1,969 and 5,000 ft (600 and 1,524 m) in elevation (Gambino et al. 1990,
pp. 1,088-1,095; Foote and Carson 1995, p. 371) on Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and Hawaii Island (GISD 2012b). The western
yellow-jacket wasp is an aggressive, generalist predator (Gambino et
al. 1987, p. 170). In temperate climates, the western yellow-jacket
wasp has an annual life cycle, but in Hawaii's tropical climate,
colonies of this species persist through a second year, allowing them
to have larger numbers of individuals and thus a greater impact on prey
populations (Gambino et al. 1987, pp. 169-170). In Haleakala National
Park on Maui, western yellow-jacket wasps were found to forage
predominantly on native arthropods (Gambino et al. 1987, pp. 169-170;
Gambino et al. 1990, pp. 1,088-1,095; Gambino and Loope 1992, pp. 15-
21). Western yellow-jacket wasps have also been observed carrying and
feeding upon recently captured adult Hawaiian Drosophila (Kaneshiro and
Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 40-45). These wasps are also believed to feed upon
picture-wing fly larvae within their host plants (Carson 1986, pp. 3-
9). In addition, native picture-wing flies, including the species in
this final rule, may be particularly vulnerable to predation by wasps
due to their lekking (male territorial defensive displays during
courtship and mating) behavior and conspicuous courtship displays that
can last for several minutes (Kaneshiro 2006, pers. comm.). The
concurrent arrival of the western yellow-jacket wasp and decline of
picture-wing fly observations in some areas suggest that the wasp may
have played a significant role in the decline of some of the picture-
wing fly populations, including populations of the picture-wing fly
listed as endangered in this rule (Carson 1986, pp. 3-9; Foote and
Carson 1995, p. 371; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 40-45; Science
Panel 2005, pp. 1-23). As the western yellow-jacket wasp is widespread
within three ecosystems (lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet)
on Hawaii Island in which the two known occurrences of the picture-wing
fly listed as endangered in this final rule occur, the results from the
studies above, in addition to observations by field biologists, suggest
that western yellow-jacket wasps can directly kill individuals of the
picture-wing fly (Foote and Carson 1995, p. 371; Kaneshiro and
Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 40-45; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23).
Nonnative Parasitoid Wasps
The number of native parasitic Hymenoptera (parasitic wasps) in
Hawaii is limited, and only species in the family Eucoilidae are known
to use Hawaiian picture-wing flies as hosts (Montgomery 1975, pp. 74-
75; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 44-45). However, several species
of small parasitic wasps (Family Braconidae), including Diachasmimorpha
tryoni (NCN), D. longicaudata (NCN), Opius vandenboschi (NCN), and
Biosteres arisanus (NCN), were purposefully introduced into Hawaii to
control nonnative pest tephritid fruit flies (Funasaki et al. 1988, pp.
105-160). These parasitic wasps are also known to attack other species
of flies, including native flies in the family Tephritidae. While these
parasitic wasps have not been recorded parasitizing Hawaiian picture-
wing flies and, in fact, may not successfully develop in Drosophilidae,
females will indiscriminately sting any fly larvae in their attempts to
oviposit (lay eggs), resulting in mortality (Evans 1962, pp. 468-483).
Because of this indiscriminate predatory behavior, we consider
nonnative parasitoid wasps to represent a threat to the picture-wing
fly listed as an endangered species in this final rule.
Nonnative Ants
Ants are not a natural component of Hawaii's arthropod fauna, and
native species evolved in the absence of predation pressure from ants.
Ants can be particularly destructive predators because of their high
densities, recruitment behavior, aggressiveness, and broad range of
diet (Reimer 1993, pp. 13-17). Ants can prey directly upon native
arthropods, exclude them through interference or exploitation
competition for food resources, or displace them by monopolizing
nesting or shelter sites (Krushelnychy et al. 2005, p. 6). The threat
of ant predation on the picture-wing fly species in this final rule is
amplified by the fact that most ant species have winged reproductive
adults (Borror et al. 1989, p. 738) and can quickly establish new
colonies in additional suitable habitats (Staples and Cowie 2001, p.
55). These attributes allow some ants to destroy otherwise
geographically isolated populations of native arthropods (Nafus 1993,
pp. 19, 22-23).
At least 47 species of ants are known to be established in the
Hawaiian Islands (Krushelnycky 2008, pp. 1-11), and at least 4
particularly aggressive species (the big-headed ant (Pheidole
megacephala), the long-legged ant (also known as the yellow crazy ant)
(Anoplolepis gracilipes), Solenopsis papuana (NCN), and Solenopsis
geminata (NCN)) have severely impacted the native insect fauna, likely
including native picture-wing flies (Reimer 1993, pp. 13-17). Numerous
other species of ants are recognized as threats to Hawaii's native
invertebrates, and an unknown number of new species are established
every few years (Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 53). As a group, ants
occupy most of Hawaii's habitat types, from coastal to subalpine
ecosystems;
[[Page 64677]]
however, many species are still invading mid-elevation montane mesic
forests, and few species have been able to colonize undisturbed montane
wet ecosystems (Reimer 1993, pp. 13-17). The lowland forests are a
portal of entry to the montane and subalpine ecosystems, and,
therefore, because ants are actively invading increasingly elevated
ecosystems, ants are more likely to occur in high densities in the
lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems currently occupied by the
picture-wing fly (Reimer 1993, pp. 13-17).
The big-headed ant originated in central Africa (Krushelnycky et
al. 2005, p. 24) and was first reported in Hawaii in 1879 (Krushelnycky
et al. 2005, p. 24). This species is considered one of the most
invasive and widely distributed ants in the world (Holway et al. 2002,
pp. 181-233; Krushelnycky et al. 2005, p. 5). In Hawaii, this species
is the most ubiquitous ant species found, from coastal to mesic habitat
up to 4,000 ft (1,219 m) in elevation, including within the habitat
areas of the picture-wing fly listed as endangered in this rule. With
few exceptions, native insects have been eliminated in habitats where
the big-headed ant is present (Gagne 1979, p. 81; Gillespie and Reimer
1993, p. 22). Consequently, big-headed ants represent a threat to the
picture-wing fly, in the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems
(Reimer 1993, pp. 14, 17; Holway et al. 2002, pp. 181-233; Daly and
Magnacca 2003, pp. 9-10; Krushelnycky et al. 2005, p. 5).
The long-legged ant appeared in Hawaii in 1952, and now occurs on
Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42; http://www.antweb.org, 2011). It inhabits low- to-mid-elevation (less than
2,000 ft (600 m)), rocky areas of moderate rainfall (less than 100 in
(250 cm) annually) (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42). Although surveys have
not been conducted to ascertain this species' presence in the two known
sites occupied by the picture-wing fly, we believe that the long-legged
ant likely occurs within the lowland mesic ecosystem that supports the
picture-wing fly due to the ant's aggressive nature and ability to
spread and colonize new locations (Foote 2008, pers. comm.). Direct
observations indicate Hawaiian arthropods are susceptible to predation
by this species; Gillespie and Reimer (1993, p. 21) and Hardy (1979,
pp. 37-38) documented the complete extirpation of several native
insects within the Kipahulu area on Maui after this area was invaded by
the long-legged ant. Lester and Tavite (2004, p. 391) found that long-
legged ants in the Tokelau Atolls (New Zealand) can form very high
densities in a relatively short period of time with locally serious
consequences for invertebrate diversity. Densities of 3,600 individuals
collected in pitfall traps within a 24-hour period were observed, as
well as predation upon invertebrates ranging from crabs to other ant
species. On Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean, numerous studies have
documented the range of impacts to native invertebrates, including the
red land crab (Gecarcoidea natalis), as a result of predation by
supercolonies of the long-legged ant (Abbott 2006, p. 102). Long-legged
ants have the potential as predators to profoundly affect the endemic
insect fauna in territories they occupy. Studies comparing insect
populations at otherwise similar ant-infested and ant-free sites found
extremely low numbers of large endemic noctuid moth larvae (Agrotis
spp. and Peridroma spp.) in ant-infested areas. Nests of groundnesting
colletid bees (Nesoprosopis spp.) were eliminated from ant-infested
sites (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42). Although only cursory observations
exist in Hawaii (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42), we believe long-legged
ants are a threat to the picture-wing fly listed as endangered in this
rule in the lowland mesic ecosystem.
Solenopsis papuana is the only abundant, aggressive ant that has
invaded intact mesic to wet forest, as well as coastal and lowland dry
habitats. This species occurs from sea level to over 2,000 ft (600 m)
on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, and is still expanding its range
(Reimer 1993, p. 14). Although surveys have not been conducted to
ascertain this species' presence in either of the two known sites
occupied by the picture-wing fly, because of the ant's expanding range
and its widespread occurrence in coastal, lowland dry, and lowland
mesic habitats, we believe S. papuana is a threat to the picture-wing
fly in the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems.
Like Solenopsis papuana, S. geminata is also considered a
significant threat to native invertebrates (Gillespie and Reimer 1993,
pp. 21-33) and occurs on all the main Hawaiian Islands (Reimer et al.
1990, p. 42; Loope and Krushelnycky 2007, p. 70). Found in drier areas
of the Hawaiian Islands, it has displaced Pheidole megacephala as the
dominant ant in some areas (Wong and Wong 1988, p. 175). Known to be a
voracious, nonnative predator in many areas to where it has spread, the
species was documented to significantly increase fruit fly mortality in
field studies in Hawaii (Wong and Wong 1988, p. 175). In addition to
predation, S. geminata workers tend honeydew-producing members of the
Homoptera suborder, especially mealybugs, which can impact plants
directly and indirectly through the spread of disease (Manaaki Whenua
Landcare Research 2012--Ant Distribution Database). Solenopsis geminata
was included among the eight species ranked as having the highest
potential risk to New Zealand in a detailed pest risk assessment for
the country (GISD 2012c), and is included as one of five ant species
listed among the ``100 of the World's Worst Invaders'' (Manaaki Whenua
Landcare Research 2012--Ant Distribution Database). Although surveys
have not been conducted to ascertain this species' presence in either
of the two sites occupied by the picture-wing fly, because of the ant's
expanding range and its widespread occurrence in coastal, lowland dry,
and lowland mesic habitats, it is a potential threat to the picture-
wing fly in the lowland mesic ecosystem.
The Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) was discovered on the island
of Oahu in 1940, and is now established on all the main Hawaiian
Islands (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42). Argentine ants do not disperse by
flight, instead colonies are moved about with soil and construction
material. The Argentine ant is found from coastal to subalpine
ecosystems on the island of Maui, and on the slopes of Mauna Loa, in
the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems on Hawaii Island, the
location of one of the two occurrences of the picture-wing fly (Hartley
et al. 2010, pp. 83-94; Krushelnychy and Gillespie 2010, pp. 643-655).
The Argentine ant has been documented to reduce populations of, or even
eliminate, native arthropods in Haleakala National Park on Maui (Cole
et al. 1992, pp. 1313-1322). On Maui, Argentine ants are significant
predators on pest fruit flies (Wong et al. 1984, pp. 1454-1458), and
Krushelychy and Gillespie (2010, pp. 643-655) found that Argentine ants
on Hawaii Island are associated with the decline of an endemic phorid
fly (Megaselia sp.). Krushelychy and Gillespie (2010, pp. 643-655)
suggest that ants severely impact larval stages of many flies. While we
are not aware of documented occurrences of predation by Argentine ants
on picture-wing flies, including the species listed as endangered in
this rule, these ants are considered to be a threat to native
arthropods located at higher elevations (Cole et al. 1992, pp. 1313-
1322) and thus potentially to the picture-wing fly that occurs from
2,000
[[Page 64678]]
ft to 4,500 ft (610 m to 1,372 m) in elevation, in the lowland mesic,
montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems on Hawaii Island (Science
Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
The rarity or disappearance of native picture-wing fly species,
including the species listed as endangered in this final rule, from
historical observation sites over the past 100 years is due to a
variety of factors. While there is no documentation that conclusively
ties the decrease in picture-wing fly observations to the establishment
of nonnative ants in lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet
ecosystems on Hawaii Island, the presence of nonnative ants in these
habitats and the decline of picture-wing fly observations in some areas
in these habitats suggest that nonnative ants may have played a role in
the decline of some populations of the picture-wing fly listed as
endangered in this rule. As nonnative predatory ants are found in three
of the described ecosystems (lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane
wet) on Hawaii Island in which the picture-wing fly occurs, the data
from the above studies, in addition to direct observations from field
biologists, suggest that nonnative predatory ants contribute to the
reduction in range and abundance of the picture-wing fly (Science Panel
2005, pp. 1-23).
Two-Spotted Leaf Hopper
Predation by the two-spotted leaf-hopper (Sophonia rufofascia) has
been reported on plants in the genus Pritchardia throughout the main
Hawaiian Islands and may be a threat to the plant Pritchardia lanigera
in this final rule (Chapin et al. 2004, p. 279). This nonnative insect
damages the leaves it feeds on, typically causing chlorosis (yellowing
due to disrupted chlorophyll production) to browning and death of
foliage (Jones et al. 2000, pp. 171-180). The damage to plants can
result in the death of affected leaves or the whole plant, owing to the
combined action of its feeding and oviposition behavior (Alyokhin et
al. 2004, p. 1). In addition to the mechanical damage caused by the
feeding process, the insect may introduce plant pathogens that lead to
eventual plant death (Jones et al. 2006, p. 2). The two-spotted
leafhopper is a highly polyphagous insect (it feeds on many different
types of food). Sixty-eight percent of its recorded host plant species
in Hawaii are fruit, vegetable, and ornamental crops, and 22 percent
are endemic plants, over half of which are rare and endangered
(Alyokhin et al. 2004, p. 6). Its range is limited to below 4,000 ft
(1,219 m) in elevation, unless there is a favorable microclimate. While
there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of two-spotted
leafhopper populations between 2005 and 2007 (possibly due to egg
parasitism), this nonnative insect has not been eradicated, and
predation by this nonnative insect remains a threat (Fukada 2007, in
litt.). Chapin et al. (2004, p. 279) believe that constant monitoring
of both wild and cultivated Pritchardia populations will be necessary
to abate this threat.
Nonnative Beetles
The Hawaiian Islands now support several species of nonnative
beetles (family Scolytidae, genus Coccotrypes), a few of which bore
into and feed on the nuts produced by certain native and nonnative palm
trees, including those in the genus Pritchardia (Swezey 1927, in litt.;
Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). Species of
Coccotrypes beetles prefer trees with large seeds, like those of
Pritchardia spp. (Beaver 1987, p. 11). Trees of Pritchardia spp. drop
their fruit before the fruit reaches maturity due to the boring action
of the Coccotrypes spp. beetles, thereby reducing natural regeneration
in the wild (Beaver 1987, p. 11; Magnacca 2005, in litt.; Science Panel
2005, pp. 1-23). The threat from Coccotrypes spp. beetles on
Pritchardia spp. in Hawaii is expected to increase with time if the
beetles are not controlled (Richardson 2011, pers. comm.). Although
Pritchardia spp. are long-lived (up to 100 years), over time,
Coccotrypes spp. beetles may severely impact Hawaiian species of
Pritchardia, including Pritchardia lanigera, which is listed as
endangered in this final rule.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
There are no approved HCPs, CCAs, or SHAs that specifically address
these 15 species and threats from predation. We acknowledge that in the
State of Hawaii there are several voluntary conservation efforts (e.g.,
construction of fences) that may be helping to ameliorate the threats
to the 15 species listed as endangered in this final rule due to
predation by nonnative animal species, specifically predation by feral
ungulates on the 13 plants species. However, these efforts are
overwhelmed by the number of threats, the extent of these threats
across the landscape, and the lack of sufficient resources (e.g.,
funding) to control or eradicate them from all areas where these 15
species occur now or occurred historically. See ``Conservation Efforts
to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Range''
under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range, above, for a summary of some voluntary
conservation actions to address threats from feral ungulates. We are
unaware of voluntary conservation measures to address the following
threats: (1) Predation by rats on 11 of the 13 plants; (2) predation by
nonnative slugs on 5 of the 13 plant species; (3) predation by
nonnative insects (e.g., western yellow-jacket wasp, ants, parasitoid
wasps) on the picture-wing fly; and (4) predation by nonnative insects
on Pritchardia lanigera.
Summary of Disease or Predation
We are unaware of any information that indicates that disease is a
threat to any of the 15 species in this final rule.
Although conservation measures are in place in some areas where
each of the 15 species in this final rule occurs, information does not
indicate that they are ameliorating the threat of predation described
above. Therefore, we consider predation by nonnative animal species
(pigs, goats, cattle, sheep, mouflon sheep, rats, slugs, wasps, ants,
the two-spotted leaf hopper, and beetles) to pose an ongoing threat to
all 13 plant species and the picture-wing fly in this final rule
throughout their ranges for the following reasons:
(1) Observations and reports have documented that pigs, goats,
cattle, sheep, and mouflon sheep browse and trample all 13 plant
species and the host plants of the picture-wing fly in this rule (see
Table 3), in addition to other studies demonstrating the negative
impacts of ungulate browsing and trampling on native plant species of
the islands (Spatz and Mueller-Dombois 1973, p. 874; Diong 1982, p.
160; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 67).
(2) Nonnative rats and slugs cause mechanical damage to plants and
destruction of plant parts (branches, fruits, and seeds), and are
considered a threat to 11 of the 13 plant species in this rule (see
Table 3). All of the plants and the picture-wing fly in this final rule
are impacted by either introduced ungulates, as noted in item (1)
above, or nonnative rats and slugs, or both.
(3) Predation of adults and larvae of Hawaiian picture-wing flies
by the western yellow-jacket wasp has been observed, and it has been
suggested that wasp predation has played a significant role in the
dramatic declines of some populations of picture-wing flies (Carson
1986, pp. 3-9; Foote and Carson 1995, p. 371; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro
1995, pp. 40-45; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23). Because western yellow-
jacket wasps are found in the three
[[Page 64679]]
ecosystems in which the picture-wing fly is found, and western yellow-
jacket wasps are known to prey on picture-wing flies, we consider
predation by the western yellow-jacket wasp to be a serious and ongoing
threat to Drosophila digressa.
(4) Parasitic wasps purposefully introduced to Hawaii to control
nonnative pest fruit flies will indiscriminately sting any fly larvae
when attempting to lay their eggs. Predation by one or more of these
nonnative parasitic wasps is a threat to Drosophila digressa.
(5) Picture-wing flies are vulnerable to predation by ants, and the
range of Drosophila digressa overlaps that of particularly aggressive,
nonnative, predatory ant species that currently occur from sea level to
the montane mesic ecosystem (over 3,280 ft (1,000 m) elevation) on all
of the main Hawaiian Islands. We therefore consider predation by these
nonnative ants to be a threat to Drosophila digressa.
(6) The plant Pritchardia lanigera is vulnerable to predation by
nonnative invertebrates. The two-spotted leafhopper has been observed
on plants in the genus Pritchardia throughout the main Hawaiian
Islands, and poses a threat to Pritchardia lanigera (Chapin et al.
2004, p. 279). Two-spotted leafhopper damage results in the death of
affected leaves or the entire plant (Alyokhin et al. 2004, p. 1). In
addition, several species of nonnative beetles (Coccotrypes spp.) bore
into and feed upon the seeds of the native palm genus Pritchardia
(Swezey 1927, in litt.; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b,
pers. comm.), which results in reduced natural regeneration of the
plants (Beaver 1987, p. 11; Magnacca 2005, in litt.; Science Panel
2005, pp. 1-23).
These threats are serious and ongoing, act in concert with other
threats to the species, and are expected to continue or increase in
magnitude and intensity into the future without effective management
actions to control or eradicate them. In addition, negative impacts to
native Hawaiian plants on Hawaii Island from grazing and browsing by
axis deer are likely should this nonnative ungulate increase in numbers
and range on the island.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Feral Ungulates
Nonnative ungulates pose a major ongoing threat to all 13 plant
species, and to the picture-wing fly, through destruction and
degradation of terrestrial habitat, and through direct predation of the
13 plant species (see Table 3). In addition, nonnative ungulates (feral
goats and cattle) pose an ongoing threat to the anchialine pool shrimp
through destruction and degradation of its anchialine pool habitat at
Lua o Palahemo (feral ungulates are not reported to pose a threat to
the anchialine pool habitat at Manuka). Feral goats and cattle trample
and forage on both native and nonnative plants around and near the pool
opening at Lua o Palahemo, and increase erosion around the pool and
sediment entering the pool. The State of Hawaii provides game mammal
(feral pigs, goats, cattle, sheep, and mouflon sheep) hunting
opportunities on 42 State-designated public hunting areas on the island
of Hawaii (H.A.R. 13-123; Mello 2011, pers. comm.). The State's
management objectives for game animals range from maximizing public
hunting opportunities (e.g., ``sustained yield'') in some areas to
removal by State staff, or their designees, in other areas (H.A.R. 13-
123). Ten of the 13 plant species (Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha,
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera,
Schiedea hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae) and the picture-wing
fly have occurrences in areas where terrestrial habitat may be
manipulated for game enhancement and where game populations are
maintained at prescribed levels using public hunting (Perlman et al.
2001, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2004, in litt.; Lorence and Perlman
2007, pp. 357-361; PEPP 2007, p. 61; Pratt 2007a, in litt.; Pratt
2007b, in litt.; Benitez et al. 2008, p. 58; Agorastos 2010, in litt.;
HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g; HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i;
HBMPk; PEPP 2010, p. 63; Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Evans 2011, in litt.;
Perry 2011, in litt.; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.; H.A.R. 13-123).
Public hunting areas are not fenced, and game mammals have unrestricted
access to most areas across the landscape, regardless of underlying
land-use designation. While fences are sometimes built to protect areas
from game mammals, the current number and locations of fences are not
adequate to prevent habitat degradation and destruction for all 15
species, or the direct predation of the 13 plant species on Hawaii
Island (see Table 3). However, the State game animal regulations are
not designed nor intended to provide habitat protection, and there are
no other regulations designed to address habitat protection from
ungulates.
The capacity of Federal and State agencies and their
nongovernmental partners in Hawaii to mitigate the effects of
introduced pests, such as ungulates and weeds, is limited due to the
large number of taxa currently causing damage (Coordinating Group on
Alien Pest Species (CGAPS) 2009). Many invasive weeds established on
Hawaii Island have currently limited but expanding ranges and are of
concern. Resources available to reduce the spread of these species and
counter their negative ecological effects are limited. Control of
established pests is largely focused on a few invasive species that
cause significant economic or environmental damage to public and
private lands. Comprehensive control of an array of invasive pests and
management to reduce disturbance regimes that favor certain invasive
species remain limited in scope. If current levels of funding and
regulatory support for invasive species control are maintained on
Hawaii Island, the Service expects existing programs to continue to
exclude or, on a very limited basis, control invasive species only in
high-priority areas. Threats from established pests (e.g., nonnative
ungulates, weeds, and invertebrates) are ongoing and expected to
continue into the future.
Introduction of Nonnative Species
Currently, four agencies are responsible for inspection of goods
arriving in Hawaii (CGAPS 2009). The Hawaii Department of Agriculture
(HDOA) inspects domestic cargo and vessels, and focuses on pests of
concern to Hawaii, especially insects or plant diseases not yet known
to be present in the State (HDOA 2009). The U.S. Department of Homeland
Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for
inspecting commercial, private, and military vessels and aircraft, and
related cargo and passengers arriving from foreign locations. CBP
focuses on a wide range of quarantine issues involving non-propagative
plant materials (processed and unprocessed); wooden packing materials,
timber, and products; internationally regulated commercial species
under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); seeds and plants listed as noxious; soil;
and pests of concern to the greater United States, such as pests of
mainland U.S. forests and agriculture. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant
Protection and Quarantine (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) inspects propagative plant
material,
[[Page 64680]]
provides identification services for arriving plants and pests,
conducts pest risk assessments, trains CBP personnel, conducts
permitting and preclearance inspections for products originating in
foreign countries, and maintains a pest database that, again, has a
focus on pests of wide concern across the United States. The Service
inspects arriving wildlife products, with the goal of enforcing the
injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C.
3371 et seq.), and identifying CITES violations.
The State of Hawaii's unique biosecurity needs are not recognized
by Federal import regulations. Under the USDA-APHIS-PPQ's commodity
risk assessments for plant pests, regulations are based on species
considered threats to the mainland United States and do not address
many species that could be pests in Hawaii (Hawaii Legislative
Reference Bureau (HLRB) 2002, pp. 1-109; USDA-APHIS-PPQ 2010, pp. 1-88;
CGAPS 2009, pp. 1-14). Interstate commerce provides the pathway for
invasive species and commodities infested with non-Federal quarantine
pests to enter Hawaii. Pests of quarantine concern for Hawaii may be
intercepted at Hawaiian ports by Federal agents, but are not always
acted on by them because these pests are not regulated under Federal
mandates. Hence, Federal protection against pest species of concern to
Hawaii has historically been inadequate. It is possible for the USDA to
grant Hawaii protective exemptions under the ``Special Local Needs
Rule,'' when clear and comprehensive arguments for both agricultural
and conservation issues are provided; however, this exemption procedure
operates on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, that avenue may only
provide minimal protection against the large diversity of foreign pests
that threaten Hawaii.
Adequate staffing, facilities, and equipment for Federal and State
pest inspectors and identifiers in Hawaii devoted to invasive species
interdiction are critical biosecurity gaps (HLRB 2002, pp. 1-14; USDA-
APHIS-PPQ 2010, pp. 1-88; CGAPS 2009, pp. 1-14). State laws have
recently been passed that allow the HDOA to collect fees for quarantine
inspection of freight entering Hawaii (e.g., Act 36 (2011) H.R.S. 150A-
5.3). Legislation passed and enacted on July 8, 2011 (H.B. 1568),
requires commercial harbors and airports in Hawaii to provide
biosecurity and inspection facilities to facilitate the movement of
cargo through the ports. This enactment is a significant step toward
optimizing the biosecurity capacity in the State of Hawaii; however,
only time will determine the true effectiveness of this legislation.
From a Federal perspective, there is a need to ensure that all civilian
and military port and airport operations and construction are in
compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The introduction of new pests to the State of Hawaii is a significant
risk to federally listed species because the existing regulations are
inadequate for the reasons discussed in the sections below.
Nonnative Animal Species
Vertebrate Species
The State of Hawaii's laws prohibit the importation of all animals
unless they are specifically placed on a list of allowable species
(HLRB 2002, pp. 1-109; CGAPS 2010, pp. 1-14). The importation and
interstate transport of invasive vertebrates is federally regulated by
the Service under the Lacey Act as ``injurious wildlife'' (Fowler et
al. 2007, pp. 353-359); the list of vertebrates considered ``injurious
wildlife'' is provided at 50 CFR 16. However, the law in its current
form has limited effectiveness in preventing invasive vertebrate
introductions into the State of Hawaii due to the following factors:
(1) The list of vertebrates considered as ``injurious wildlife'' and
provided at 50 CFR 16 includes a relatively limited list of vertebrate
species that are federally enforceable under the Lacey Act; (2) the
current list of vertebrates that are considered ``injurious wildlife''
may not include injurious wildlife that are identified under individual
State laws or regulations; and (3) listing additional vertebrate
species under 50 CFR 16 may entail a long process or timeframe. On June
21, 2012, a new State law, Act 144 (``Relating to Wildlife''), was
signed into law. Act 144 prohibits the interisland possession,
transfer, transport, or release after transport of wild or feral deer,
and establishes mandatory fines. On June 21, 2012, Act 149 (``Relating
to Emergency Rules for Threats to Natural Resources or the Health of
the Environment'') was also signed into State law. Act 149 expands the
ability of State agencies to adopt emergency rules to address
situations that impose imminent threats to natural resources (Aila
2012a, in litt.; Martin 2012, in litt.). However, the effectiveness of
these two recently enacted laws has not yet been demonstrated.
Recently (2010-2011), unauthorized introduction of axis deer (Axis
axis) to the island of Hawaii as a game animal has occurred (Kessler
2011, in litt.; Aila 2012a, in litt.). They have been observed in the
regions of Kohala, Kau, Kona, and Mauna Kea (HDLNR 2011, in litt.). The
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources-Department of Forestry
and Wildlife (HDLNR-HDOFAW) has developed a response-and-removal plan,
including a partnership now underway between HDLNR, Hawaii Department
of Agriculture (HDOA), the Big Island Invasive Species Committee
(BIISC), Federal natural resource management agencies, ranchers,
farmers, private landowners, and concerned citizens (http://www.bigisland-bigisland.com/, June 6, 2011). The partnership is working
with animal trackers and game cameras to survey locations where axis
deer have been observed in an effort to eradicate them on the island
(http://www.bigisland-bigisland.com/, June 6, 2011; Osher 2012, in
litt.). There is a high level of concern by the partnership due to the
negative impacts of axis deer on agriculture and native ecosystems on
neighboring islands (e.g., Maui) (Aila 2011, in litt.; Schipper 2011,
in litt.; Aila 2012b, in litt.). In response to the presence of axis
deer on Hawaii Island, the Hawaii Invasive Species Council drafted a
bill to allow State agencies to adopt emergency rules in instances of
imminent peril to the public health, safety, or morals, or to livestock
and poultry health (Aila 2012a, in litt.). This was intended to address
a gap in the current emergency rules authority, expanding the ability
of State agencies to adopt emergency rules to address situations that
impose imminent threats to natural resources (Aila 2012a, in litt.;
Martin 2012, in litt.). This bill was enacted into State law on June
21, 2012.
Invertebrate Species
Predation by nonnative invertebrate pests (slugs, wasps, ants,
leafhoppers, and beetles) negatively impacts 6 of the 13 the plant
species and the picture-wing fly (see Table 3 and Factor C. Disease or
Predation, above). It is likely that the introduction of most nonnative
invertebrate pests to the State has been and continues to be accidental
and incidental to other intentional and permitted activities. Although
Hawaii State government and Federal agencies have regulations and some
controls in place (see above), and a few private organizations are
voluntarily addressing this issue, the introduction and movement of
nonnative invertebrate pest species between islands and from one
watershed to the next continues. For example, an average of 20 new
alien invertebrate species have been introduced to Hawaii per year
since 1970, an increase of 25 percent over the previous totals between
1930 and 1970 (The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii
[[Page 64681]]
(TNCH) 1992, p. 8). Existing regulatory mechanisms therefore appear
inadequate to ameliorate the threat of introductions of nonnative
invertebrates, and we have no evidence to suggest that any changes to
these regulatory mechanisms are anticipated in the future.
Nonnative Plant Species
Nonnative plants destroy and modify habitat throughout the ranges
of 14 of the 15 species listed as endangered in this final rule (see
Table 3, above). As such, they represent a serious and ongoing threat
to each of these species. In addition, nonnative plants have been shown
to outcompete native plants and convert native-dominated plant
communities to nonnative plant communities (see ``Habitat Destruction
and Modification by Nonnative Plants,'' under Factor A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or
Range, above).
The State of Hawaii allows the importation of most plant taxa, with
limited exceptions, if shipped from domestic ports (HLRB 2002; USDA-
APHIS-PPQ 2010; CGAPS 2010). Hawaii's plant import rules (H.A.R. 4-70)
regulate the importation of 13 plant taxa of economic interest;
regulated crops include pineapple, sugarcane, palms, and pines. Certain
horticultural crops (e.g., orchids) may require import permits and have
pre-entry requirements that include treatment or quarantine or both,
prior to or following entry into the State. The State noxious weed list
(H.A.R. 4-68) and USDA-APHIS-PPQ's Restricted Plants List restrict the
import of a limited number of noxious weeds. If not specifically
prohibited, current Federal regulations allow plants to be imported
from international ports with some restrictions. The Federal Noxious
Weed List (see 7 CFR 360.200) includes few of the many globally known
invasive plants, and plants in general do not require a weed risk
assessment prior to importation from international ports. USDA-APHIS-
PPQ is in the process of finalizing rules to include a weed risk
assessment for newly imported plants. Although the State has general
guidelines for the importation of plants, and regulations are in place
regarding the plant crops mentioned above, the intentional or
inadvertent introduction of nonnative plants outside the regulatory
process and movement of species between islands and from one watershed
to the next continues, which represents a threat to native flora for
the reasons described above. In addition, government funding is
inadequate to provide for sufficient inspection services and
monitoring. One study concluded that the plant importation laws
virtually ensure new invasive plants will be introduced via the nursery
and ornamental trade, and that outreach efforts cannot keep up with the
multitude of new invasive plants being distributed. The author states
the only thing that wide-scale public outreach can do in this regard is
to let the public know new invasive plants are still being sold, and
they should ask for noninvasive or native plants instead (Martin 2007,
in litt.).
In 1995, the Coordinating Group on Alien and Plant Species (CGAPS),
a partnership comprised primarily of managers from every major Federal,
State, County, and private agency and organization involved in invasive
species work in Hawaii, facilitated the formation of the Hawaii
Invasive Species Council (HISC), which was created by gubernatorial
executive order in 2002, to coordinate local initiatives for the
prevention and control of invasive species by providing policy-level
direction and planning for the State departments responsible for
invasive species issues. In 2003, the Governor signed into law Act 85,
which conveys statutory authority to the HISC to continue to coordinate
approaches among the various State and Federal agencies, and
international and local initiatives for the prevention and control of
invasive species (HDLNR 2003, p. 3-15; HISC 2009; H.R.S. 194-2(a)).
Some of the recent priorities for the HISC include interagency efforts
to control nonnative species such as the plants Miconia calvescens
(miconia) and Cortaderia spp. (pampas grass), coqui frogs
(Eleutherodactylus coqui), and ants (HISC 2009). Since 2009, State
funding for HISC has been cut by approximately 50 percent (total
funding dropped from $4 million in fiscal year FY 2009 to $2 million in
FY 2010, and to $1.8 million for FY 2011 to FY 2013 (Atwood 2012, in
litt.; Atwood 2013, in litt.). Congressional earmarks made up some of
the shortfall in State funding in 2010 and into 2011. These funds
supported ground crew staff that would have been laid off due to the
shortfall in State funding (Clark 2012, in litt.). Following a 50-
percent reduction from FY 2009 funding, the HISC budget has remained
relatively flat (i.e., State funding is equal to funding provided in
2009) from FY 2010 to FY 2013 (Atwood 2013, in litt.).
Dumping of Trash and Introduction of Nonnative Fish
The Lua o Palahemo anchialine pool is located in a remote, largely
undeveloped area, but is well known and frequently visited by residents
and visitors for recreational opportunities, as indicated by the
numerous off-road vehicle tracks around the pool (USFWS 2012 in litt.;
Richardson 2012, in litt., pp. 1-2). As of the 2010 survey, a sign
posted near Lua o Palahemo indicates that individuals who disturb the
site are subject to fines under Haw. Rev. Stat. 6E (Hawaii's State
Historic Preservation Act (SHPA)). This statute makes it unlawful for
any person to take, appropriate, excavate, injure, destroy, or alter
any historic property or aviation artifact located upon lands owned or
controlled by the State or any of its political subdivisions, except as
permitted by the State. Violators are subject to fines of not less than
$500 nor more than $10,000 for each separate offense. However,
regardless of the above warning, sometime between the 2010 survey and
the June 2012 visit by Service biologists, the sign had been removed by
unknown persons (Richardson 2012, in litt., pp. 1-2).
Three of the four anchialine pools in Manuka that support
Vetericaris chaceorum are located between 10 and 33 ft (3 and 10 m)
from the jeep road, which provides access to popular coastal fishing
and recreational locations frequented by the public, and one pool is
approximately 60 ft (18 m) from the road (Sakihara 2013, in litt.). The
intentional introduction of nonnative freshwater fish is possible at
these pools because there is evidence that at least one pool in Manuka
harbors nonnative freshwater poeciliids (see Factors Affecting the 15
Species, below) and marine fish, likely introduced by fishermen. Three
of the four anchialine pools are located in Manuka NAR. Prohibited
activities in the State natural area reserve include, but are not
limited to, the removal, injury, or killing of any plant or animal life
(except game mammals and birds), the introduction of any plant or
animal life, and littering or deposition of refuse or any other
substance (NAR System-Title 13, Subtitle 9 Natural Area Reserve System,
Chap. 209 Sect. 13-209-4 Prohibited activities). The minimum fine for
anyone convicted of violation of any laws or rules applicable to the
natural area reserve system is $1,000. The maximum fine that may be
collected is $10,000 for a third violation within 5 years. The State
may also initiate legal action to recover administrative costs.
However, there are no signs in place informing the public about the
unique animals that inhabit the anchialine pools, the threats posed by
dumping fish in the pools, or the prohibitions
[[Page 64682]]
against the introduction of plants or animals into the pools. In
addition, there are no law enforcement officers or NAR staff assigned
to regularly patrol the area for prohibited activities such as fish
dumping in the anchialine pools (Hadway 2013, pers. comm.). Although
the introduction of animals, such nonnative freshwater fish and marine
fish, into Manuka NAR is a prohibited activity, an introduction has
been documented in at least one pool in Manuka. Therefore, the existing
State NARs rules are not adequately preventing the introduction of
nonnative freshwater fish into the anchialine pools within the NAR.
On the basis of the above information, existing State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms are not adequately preventing the introduction of
nonnative species to Hawaii via interstate and international
mechanisms, or intrastate movement of nonnative species between
islands, and watersheds in Hawaii, and thus do not adequately protect
each of the 13 plant species and the picture-wing fly in this final
rule from the threat of new introductions of nonnative species, or from
the continued expansion of nonnative species populations on and between
islands and watersheds. Nonnative species prey upon species, modify or
destroy habitat, or directly compete with one or more of these 14
species for food, space, and other necessary resources. The impacts
from these introduced threats are ongoing and are expected to continue
into the future.
In addition, the existing regulatory mechanisms do not provide
adequate protection for the anchialine pool shrimp, Vetericaris
chaceorum, from the intentional dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish into the pools that support this pool shrimp (at Lua o
Palahemo and Manuka NAR, see above) (see Factor E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence, below). Existing
regulatory mechanisms are therefore inadequate to ameliorate the threat
of introductions of trash and nonnative fish into the pools that
support the anchialine pool shrimp listed as endangered in this final
rule, and we have no evidence to suggest that any changes to these
regulatory mechanisms are anticipated in the future.
Summary of Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The State's current management of nonnative game mammals is
inadequate to prevent the degradation and destruction of habitat of the
13 plant species, the anchialine pool shrimp, and the picture-wing fly
(Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range), and to prevent predation of all 13
plant species and the host plants of the picture-wing fly Drosophila
digressa (Factor C. Disease or Predation).
Existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms are not
effectively preventing the introduction and spread of nonnative species
from outside the State of Hawaii and between islands and watersheds
within the State of Hawaii. Habitat-altering, nonnative plant species
(Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range) and predation by nonnative animal
species (Factor C. Disease or Predation) pose a major ongoing threat to
the 13 plant species and the picture-wing fly listed in this final
rule.
Existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms do not provide
adequate protection for the anchialine pool shrimp Vetericaris
chaceorum, from the intentional dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish into Lua o Palahemo and the four pools at Manuka that
support the anchialine pool shrimp (see Factor E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence).
As all 13 plant species and the picture-wing fly experience threats
from habitat degradation and loss by nonnative plants (Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range), and all 15 species experience threats from nonnative
animals (including nonnative fish) (Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range and
Factor C. Disease or Predation), we conclude the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to sufficiently reduce these threats to all
15 species.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence
Other factors that pose threats to some or all of the 15 species
include dumping of trash and the introduction of nonnative fish, small
numbers of populations and small population sizes, hybridization, lack
of or declining regeneration, loss of host plants, and other
activities. Each threat is discussed in detail below, along with
identification of which species are affected by these threats.
Dumping of Trash and Introduction of Nonnative Fish
The depressional features of anchialine pools make them susceptible
to dumping. Refuse found in degraded pools and pools that have been
filled in with rubble has been dated to about 100 years old, and the
practice continues today (Brock 2004, p. 15). Lua o Palahemo, one of
the two known locations of Vetericaris chaceorum, the anchialine pool
shrimp listed in this final rule, is located approximately 558 ft (170
m) from a sandy beach frequented by visitors who fish and swim. In
addition, there are multiple dirt roads that surround the pool, making
it highly accessible. Plastic bags, paper, fishing line, water bottles,
soda cans, radios, barbed wire, and a bicycle have been documented
within the pool (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-418; Bozanic 2004,
p. 1; Wada 2010, in litt.). Physical trash can increase the
accumulation of sediment in the pool portion of Lua o Palahemo by
plugging up the cracks and trapping sediments, which subsequently
negatively impacts adequate water flushing. Also, physical trash can
block the currently narrow passage into the much larger water body in
the lava tube below. The degree of impact that trash imposes on a given
anchialine pool habitat depends on the ratio between the size of the
pool and the amount and type of trash (i.e., in a smaller pool, the
negative impacts of trash on flushing would be greater because of the
reduced aquatic substrate area). Introduction of trash involving
chemical contamination into anchialine pools, as has been observed
elsewhere on Hawaii Island (Brock 2004, pp. 15-16), will more
drastically affect water quality and result in local extirpation of
hypogeal shrimp species. Biologists did not record an accumulation of
trash in the pool during the December 2012 survey (Wada 2012, in
litt.). According to Sakihara, the pools at Manuka are threatened by
nonnative species, trash, human waste, and physical alteration (at
least one pool has been physically altered by the public). Dumping of
trash has not been observed at the four pools that support V. chaceorum
at Manuka, although trash dumping has been documented in and around
other anchialine pools at Manuka, including at Keawaiki, where this
species has been documented (Sakihara 2009, pp. 1, 21, 23, 25, 30). In
addition, physical alteration (e.g., filling with trash such as
aluminum cans and paper by campers), has been reported in at least one
anchialine pool at Keawaiki, although it has not been observed in the
four pools
[[Page 64683]]
that support V. chaceorum (Sakihara 2009, pp. 4, 23, 25).
In general, the accidental or intentional introduction and spread
of nonnative fish (bait and aquarium fish) is considered the greatest
threat to anchialine pools in Hawaii (Brock 2004, p. 16). Maciolek
(1983, p. 612) found that the abundance of shrimp in a given population
is indirectly related to predation by fish. The release of mosquito
fish (Gambusia affinis) and tilapia (Oreochromis mossambica (synonym:
Tilapia mossambica) into the Waikoloa Anchialine Pond Preserve (WAAPA)
at Waikoloa, North Kona, Hawaii, resulted in the infestation of all
ponds within an approximately 3.2-ha (8-ac) area, which represented
approximately two-thirds of the WAAPA. Within 6 months, all native
hypogeal shrimp species disappeared (Brock 2004, pp. iii). Nonnative
fish drive anchialine species out of the lighted, higher productivity
portion of the pools, into the surrounding water table bedrock,
subsequently leading to the decimation of the benthic community
structure of the pool (Brock 2004, p. iii). In addition, nonnative fish
prey on and exclude native hypogeal shrimp that are usually a dominant
and essential (Brock 2004, p. 16) faunal component of anchialine pool
ecosystems (Bailey-Brock and Brock 1993, pp. 338-355). The loss of the
shrimp changes ecological succession by reducing herbivory of
macroalgae, allowing an overgrowth and change of pool flora. This
overgrowth changes the system from clear, well-flushed basins to a
system characterized by heavy sedimentation and poor water exchange,
which increases the rate of pool senescence (Brock 2004, p. 16).
Nonnative fish, unlike native fish, are able to complete their life
cycles within anchialine habitats, and remain a permanent, detrimental
presence in all pools into which they are introduced (Brock 2004, p.
16). In Hawaii, the most frequently illegally introduced fish are in
the Poeciliidae family (freshwater fish that bear live young) and
include mosquito fish, various mollies (Poecilia spp.), and tilapia,
which prey on and exclude native hypogeal shrimp such as the
herbivorous species upon which Vetericaris chaceorum presumably feed.
Lua o Palahemo is highly accessible to off-road vehicle traffic and
located near an area frequented by residents and visitors for fishing
and other outdoor recreational activities. The pool is vulnerable to
the intentional dumping of trash and introduction of nonnative fish
(bait and aquarium fish) because the area is easily accessible to
vehicles and human traffic, and yet due to its remote location, is far
from regulatory oversight by the DHHL or the Hawaii State Deparment of
Aquatic Resources (DAR). According to Brock (2012, pers. comm.),
sometime in the 1980s, nonnative fish were introduced into Lua o
Palahemo. It is our understanding that the fish were subsequently
removed with a fish poison, and to our knowledge the pool currently
remains free of nonnative fish. The most commonly used piscicide (fish
pesticide) in the United States for management of fish in freshwater
systems is a naturally occurring chemical, marketed as Rotenone.
Rotenone use in marine systems (including anchialine pools) is illegal
according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2007, pp. 22-23,
29, 32; Finlayson et al. 2010, p. 2).
Three of the four pools that support Vetericaris chaceorum at
Manuka are located between 10 and 33 ft (3 and 10 m) from a jeep road
that provides access to coastal fishing and recreational locations
frequented by the public (Sakihara 2013, in litt.). The fourth pool is
approximately 60 ft (18 m) from the jeep road (Sakihara 2013, in
litt.). The pools are vulnerable to the intentional dumping of trash
and introduction of nonnative fish because trash dumping has been
documented in and around anchialine pools at Manuka, including at
Keawaiki, where this species has been documented (Sakihara 2009, pp.
21, 25, 30), and nonnative freshwater poeciliids (fish in the
Poeciliidae family and that bear live young) have been introduced and
established in at least one pool in the Manuka pool complex (Sakihara
2012, in litt.). This pool is approximately 0.3 mi (0.5 km) from the
four pools that support V. chaceorum. Marine fish have been detected in
the same pool, and it is speculated that these fish were intentionally
introduced into the pool by fishermen (Sakihara 2012, in litt.).
Recreational users utilize anchialine pools as ``holding pools'' for
bait fish (e.g., nonnative freshwater fish like tilapia, mosquito fish,
and marine fish like aholehole (Kuhlia sp.) and kupipi (blackspot
sergeant; Abudefduf sordidus)) used for fishing (Wada 2013, in litt.).
The impacts of native marine fish on V. chaceorum are unknown. In
addition, the pools that support V. chaceorum at Manuka are vulnerable
to intentional physical alteration because at least one anchialine pool
at Keawaiki (where this species has been documented) has been altered,
although pool alteration has not been observed in the four pools that
support V. chaceorum (Sakihara 2009, p. 23).
As the anchialine pool shrimp Vetericaris chaceorum is only known
from two locations, the introduction of nonnative fish, which prey on
and exclude native hypogeal shrimp like V. chaceorum or its associated
prey shrimp species, would lead to the extirpation of this species at
one or both of its known locations, directly or indirectly due to the
lower abundance of co-occurring shrimp species that provide food
resources to V. chaceorum. In addition, the loss of native shrimp
species leads to changes in ecological succession in anchialine pools,
leading to senescence of the pool habitat, thereby rendering the pool
unsuitable habitat (Brock 2004, p. 16). Dumping of nonnative fish into
one or more of the three anchialine pools at Manuka, which are believed
to have a subterranean connection, would impact the integrity of all
three pools should nonnative fish spread from the pool of introduction
to the other two pools. Although not common, experts agree that the
dumping of nonnative fish can happen (Sakihara 2013, in litt.; Wada
2013, pers. comm.). A fourth pool that supports V. chaceorum is not
believed to have a subterranean connection to other pools at Manuka.
Recreational Use of Off-Road Vehicles
Off-road vehicles frequent the area surrounding the Lua o Palahemo
anchialine pool that supports one of the two known occurrences of
Vetericaris chaceorum, resulting in increased erosion and accumulation
of sediment, which negative impacts the anchialine pool habitat. The
negative impacts from sedimentation are discussed under Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range, above (Richarson 2012, in litt.)
Small Number of Individuals and Populations
Species that are endemic to single islands are inherently more
vulnerable to extinction than are widespread species, because of the
increased risk of genetic bottlenecks; random demographic fluctuations;
climate change effects; and localized catastrophes, such as hurricanes,
drought, rockfalls, landslides, and disease outbreaks (Pimm et al.
1988, p. 757; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607). These problems are further
magnified when populations are few and restricted to a very small
geographic area, and when the number of individuals in each population
is very small. Populations with these characteristics face an increased
likelihood of stochastic extinction due to changes in demography, the
environment, genetics, or other factors (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986,
pp. 24-34). Small, isolated populations often exhibit reduced levels of
genetic
[[Page 64684]]
variability, which diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and
respond to environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability of
long-term persistence (e.g., Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. 4; Newman and
Pilson 1997, p. 361). Very small, isolated populations are also more
susceptible to reduced reproductive vigor due to ineffective
pollination (plants), inbreeding depression (plants and shrimp), and
hybridization (plants and flies). The problems associated with small
population size and vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or
natural catastrophes are further magnified by synergistic interactions
with other threats, such as those discussed above (see Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range and Factor C. Disease or Predation, above).
Plants
A limited number of individuals (fewer than 50 individuals) is a
threat to the following six plant species listed as endangered in this
final rule: Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Platydesma remyi, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, and
S. hawaiiensis. We consider these species highly vulnerable to
extinction due to threats associated with small population size or
small number of populations because:
The only known occurrences of Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, and Cyrtandra wagneri are threatened
either by landslides, rockfalls, inundation by high surf, or erosion,
or a combination of these, because of their locations in lowland wet,
montane wet, coastal, and dry cliff ecosystems.
Platydesma remyi is known from fewer than 40 scattered
individuals (Stone et al. 1999, p. 1210; HBMP 2010i). Declining or lack
of regeneration in the wild appears to threaten this species.
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei is known from a single
individual in the Kohala Mountains (Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.;
Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106; HBMP 2010j; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Habitat destruction or direct predation by ungulates,
nonnative plants, drought, and fire are threats to the 25 to 40
individuals of Schiedea hawaiiensis (Mitchell et al. 2005a; NDMC 2012--
Online Archives).
Animals
Like most native island biota, the endemic anchialine pool shrimp
and Hawaiian picture-wing fly are particularly sensitive to
disturbances due to low number of individuals, low population numbers,
and small geographic ranges. We consider the picture-wing fly
vulnerable to extinction due to threats associated with low number of
individuals and low number of populations because Drosophila digressa
is known from only two of its five historically known locations. The
following threats to this species have all been documented: Predation
by nonnative wasps and ants; habitat degradation and destruction by
nonnative ungulates, fire, and drought; loss of its host plants; and
competition with nonnative flies for its host plants (Science Panel
2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
Hybridization
Natural hybridization is a frequent phenomenon in plants and can
lead to the formation of new species (Orians 2000, p. 1,949), or
sometimes to the decline of species through genetic assimilation or
``introgression'' (Ellstrand 1992, pp. 77, 81; Levine et al. 1996, pp.
10-16; Rhymer and Simberloff 1996, p. 85). Hybridization, however, is
especially problematic for rare species that come into contact with
species that are abundant or more common (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996,
p. 83). We consider hybridization to be a threat to three species, and
potentially a threat to one more additional species in this final rule
because hybridization may lead to extinction of the original
genotypically distinct species. Hybrid swarms (hybrids between parent
species, and subsequently formed progeny from crosses among hybrids and
crosses of hybrids to parental species) have been reported between the
plant Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and B. menziesii ssp.
filiformis near Puuwaawaa in north Kona (Ganders and Nagata 1983, p.
12; Ganders and Nagata 1999, p. 278); the plant Cyrtandra nanawaleensis
is known to hybridize with C. lysiosepala in and around the Nanawale FR
(Price 2011, in litt.); and Cyrtandra wagneri is reported to hybridize
with C. tintinnabula. Only eight individuals express the true phenotype
of C. wagneri, and only three of these individuals are reproducing
successfully (PEPP 2010, p. 102; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Native species
can also hybridize with related nonnative species. For example, native
species of Pittosporum, including the plant Pittosporum hawaiiense, are
known to exhibit high levels of gene flow, and hybridization between
native Pittosporum and nonnative species of Pittosporum may occur when
they occupy similar habitat and elevation (Daehler and Carino 2001, pp.
91-96; Bacon et al. 2011, p. 733).
Regeneration
Lack of, or low levels of, regeneration (reproduction and
recruitment) in the wild has been observed, and is a threat to,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, and Pritchardia lanigera (Bio
2011, pers. comm.; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). The reasons for this
are not well understood: however, seed predation by rats, ungulates,
and beetles is thought to play a role (Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Magnacca
2011b, pers. comm.; Crysdale 2013, pers. comm.). In addition, Cyanea
tritomantha is reported to produce few seeds with low viability. The
reasons for this are unknown (Bio 2008, in litt.).
Competition
Competition with nonnative tipulid flies (large crane flies, family
Tipulidae) for larvae host plants adversely impacts the picture-wing
fly listed in this final rule. The Hawaiian Islands now support several
species of nonnative tipulid flies, and the larvae of some species
within this group feed within the decomposing bark of some of the host
plants utilized by picture-wing flies, including Cheirodendron,
Clermontia, Pleomele, and Charpentiera, one of the two host plants for
Drosophila digressa (Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2005, in
litt.). The effect of this competition is a reduction of available host
plant material for the larvae of the picture-wing fly. In laboratory
studies, Grimaldi and Jaenike (1984, pp. 1,113-1,120) demonstrated that
competition between Drosophila larvae and other fly larvae can exhaust
food resources, which affects both the probability of larval survival
and the body size of adults, resulting in reduced adult fitness,
fecundity, and lifespan. Both soldier and neriid flies have been
suggested to impose a similar threat to Hawaiian picture-wing flies
(Montgomery 2005, in litt.; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23).
Loss of Host Plants
Drosophila digressa is dependent on decaying stem bark from plants
in the genera Charpentiera and Pisonia for oviposition and larval
development (Montgomery 1975, p. 95; Magnacca 2013, in litt.).
Charpentiera and Pisonia are considered highly susceptible to damage
from alien ungulates, such as pigs, cattle, mouflon, and goats, as well
as competition with nonnative plants (e.g., Omalanthus populifolius,
Schinus terebinthifolius, and Psidium cattleianum) (Foote and Carson
1995, pp. 370-37; Science Panel 2005, pp.
[[Page 64685]]
1-23; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.; Magnacca 2013, in litt.). Bark-
breeding Drosophila species are sensitive to bottlenecks in host plant
populations due to their dependence on older, senescent, or dying
plants (Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 32). Altered decay cycles in host
plants caused by genetic bottlenecks, or decreasing availability of
host plants due to browsing and trampling by nonnative ungulates (pigs,
goats, cattle, and mouflon), competition with nonnative plants,
drought, or other phenomena can subsequently alter the life cycle of
the picture-wing fly by disrupting the early stages of development. The
habitat of Drosophila digressa at Manuka has experienced extreme to
severe drought for several years, which has resulted in overall habitat
degradation and appears to alter decay processes in the picture-wing
fly host plants (both Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia spp.). Magnacca
(2013, in litt.) anticipates an alteration in host plant decay will
lead to a long-term decline in availability of host plants that can
support the life-history requirements of D. digressa (see ``Habitat
Destruction and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides,
Heavy Rain, Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought,'' above). In
addition, predation by nonnative beetles (the branch and twig borer
(Amphicerus cornutus), the black twig borer (Xylosandrus compactus),
and weevils (Oxydema fusiforme) has been documented as a threat to
Charpentiera spp. (Medeiros et al. 1986, p. 29; Giffin 2009, p. 81).
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Their Continued Existence
There are no approved HCPs, CCAs, SHAs, MOUs, or other voluntary
actions that specifically address these 15 species and the threats from
other natural or manmade factors. We are unaware of any voluntary
conservation actions to address the threat of dumping of trash and
introduction of nonnative fish into anchialine pools that support the
anchialine pool shrimp, Vetericaris chaceorum, which is listed as
endangered in this final rule. The State's PEP Program identified 8 of
the 13 plant species (Cyanea marksii, Cyrtandra wagneri, Phyllostegia
floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, Schiedea diffusa
ssp. macraei, S. hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae) in this final
rule as priority species for collection, propagation, and outplanting;
however, due to other workload priorities and limited funding, they
have not been able to carry out all of these actions (PEPP 2012, pp. 1-
169). While the actions they have been able to implement are a step
toward increasing the overall numbers and populations of PEPP species
in the wild, these actions are insufficient to eliminate the threat of
limited numbers at this time. In addition, successful reproduction and
replacement of outplanted individuals by seedlings, juveniles, and
adults has not yet been observed in the wild. We are unaware of any
voluntary conservation actions to address the threat to the picture-
wing fly from low number of individuals. We are unaware of any
voluntary conservation actions to address the threat to three plant
species from hybridization, the threat of lack of regeneration to four
plant species, or the threats from competition with nonnative tipulid
flies and the loss of host plants for the picture-wing fly.
Summary of Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence
The conservation measures described above are insufficient to
eliminate the threat from other natural or manmade factors to each of
the 15 species listed as endangered in this final rule. We consider the
threats from dumping of trash and introduction of nonnative fish into
the pools that support the anchialine pool shrimp in this final rule to
be serious threats that can occur at any time, although their
occurrence is not predictable. The use of anchialine pools for dumping
of trash and introduction of nonnative fish are widespread practices in
Hawaii and can occur at any time at the Lua o Palahemo and Manuka
pools. Nonnative fish prey on or outcompete native, herbivorous
anchialine pool shrimp that serve as the prey base for predatory
species of shrimp, including the anchialine pool shrimp listed as
endangered in this rule. In addition, recreational use of off-road
vehicles that frequent Lua o Palahemo are a threat to the shrimp, due
to the resulting erosion and sedimentation that builds up in the pool
(for impacts associated with sedimentation, see Factor A. The Present
or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or
Range, above; and for impacts associated with off-road vehicles, see
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence, above). The occurrence of off-road vehicle traffic is not
predictable; however, it happens frequently and is expected to
continue.
We consider the threat from limited number of populations and few
(less than 50) individuals to be a serious and ongoing threat to 6
plant species in this final rule (Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyrtandra wagneri, Platydesma remyi,
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, and S. hawaiiensis) because: (1) These
species may experience reduced reproductive vigor due to ineffective
pollination or inbreeding depression; (2) they may experience reduced
levels of genetic variability, leading to diminished capacity to adapt
and respond to environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability
of long-term persistence; and (3) a single catastrophic event may
result in extirpation of remaining populations and extinction of the
species. This threat applies to the entire range of each species.
The threat to the picture-wing fly from limited numbers of
individuals and populations is ongoing and is expected to continue into
the future because: (1) This species may experience reduced
reproductive vigor due to inbreeding depression; (2) it may experience
reduced levels of genetic variability leading to diminished capacity to
adapt and respond to environmental changes, thereby lessening the
probability of long-term persistence; (3) a single catastrophic event
(e.g., hurricane, drought) may result in extirpation of remaining
populations and extinction of this species; and (4) species with few
known locations, such as Drosophila digressa, are less resilient to
threats that might otherwise have a relatively minor impact on widely
distributed species. For example, the reduced availability of host
trees or an increase in predation of the picture-wing fly adults that
might be absorbed in a widely distributed species could result in a
significant decrease in survivorship or reproduction of a species with
limited distribution. The limited distribution of this species thus
magnifies the severity of the impact of the other threats discussed in
this final rule.
The threat from hybridization is unpredictable but an ongoing and
ever-present threat to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis, and Cyrtandra wagneri, and a potential threat to
Pittosporum hawaiiense. We consider the threat to Cyanea tritomantha,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, and Pritchardia lanigera from
lack of regeneration to be ongoing and to continue into the future
because the reasons for the lack of recruitment in the wild are unknown
and uncontrolled, and any competition from nonnative plants or habitat
modification by ungulates or fire could lead to the extirpation of
these species.
Competition for host plants with nonnative tipulid flies is a
threat to Drosophila digressa and is expected to continue into the
future because field
[[Page 64686]]
biologists report that these nonnative flies are widespread and there
is no mechanism in place to control their population growth. Loss of
host plants (Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia spp.) is a threat to the
picture-wing fly, and we consider this threat to continue into the
future because field biologists have reported that species of
Charpentiera and Pisonia are declining overall in the wild (see Factor
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Habitat or Range and Factor C. Disease or Predation, above).
Summary of Factors
The primary factors that pose serious and ongoing threats to one or
more of the 15 species throughout their ranges in this final rule
include: Habitat degradation and destruction by agriculture and
urbanization, nonnative ungulates and plants, fire, natural disasters,
sedimentation, and potentially climate change, and the interaction of
these threats (Factor A); overutilization due to collection of seeds
and seedlings of the plant Pritchardia lanigera for trade or market
(Factor B); predation by nonnative animal species (pigs, goats, sheep,
mouflon sheep, cattle, rats, nonnative fish, slugs, wasps, ants, two-
spotted leaf hopper, and beetles) (Factor C); inadequate regulatory
mechanisms to address nonnative species, and human dumping of nonnative
fish and trash into anchialine pools (Factor D); and dumping of trash,
introduction of nonnative fish, recreational use, limited numbers of
populations and individuals, hybridization, lack of regeneration,
competition, and loss of host plants (Factor E). While we acknowledge
the voluntary conservation measures described above may help to
ameliorate one or more of the threats to the 15 species listed as
endangered in this final rule, these conservation measures are
insufficient to control or eradicate these threats from all areas where
these species occur now or occurred historically.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding threats to each of the 15 species. We
find that each of the 13 plant species and the picture-wing fly face
threats that are ongoing and expected to continue into the future
throughout their ranges from the present destruction and modification
of their habitats from nonnative feral ungulates and nonnative plants
(Factor A). Destruction and modification of habitat by development and
urbanization is a threat to one plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla). Habitat destruction and modification from fire is a
threat to three of the plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Phyllostegia floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis) and the
picture-wing fly Drosophila digressa. Destruction and modification of
habitat from rockfalls, landslides, treefalls, heavy rain, inundation
by high surf, and subsequent erosion are a threat to four plant species
(Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea
tritomantha, and Cyrtandra wagneri). Habitat loss or degradation due to
drought is a threat to two plants, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
and Schiedea hawaiiensis, as well as to the picture-wing fly. We are
concerned about the effects of projected climate change on all 15
species, particularly rising temperatures, but recognize there is
limited information on the exact nature of impacts that these species
may experience.
We find that the anchialine pool shrimp faces threats that are
ongoing and expected to continue into the future from the present
destruction and modification of its anchialine pool habitat at Lua o
Palahemo, one of only two known locations for this species, due to
sedimentation resulting from degradation of the immediate area
surrounding this anchialine pool from nonnative feral ungulates (cattle
and goats). Sedimentation reduces both food productivity and the
ability of Lua o Palahemo to support the anchialine pool shrimp (Factor
A).
Overcollection for commercial and recreational purposes poses a
threat to Pritchardia lanigera (Factor B).
Predation and herbivory on all 13 plant species by feral pigs,
goats, cattle, sheep, mouflon, rats, slugs, two-spotted leaf hoppers,
or beetles poses a serious and ongoing threat, as does predation of the
picture-wing fly by nonnative wasps and ants (Factor C).
Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to reduce current and
ongoing threats posed by nonnative plants and animals to all 15
species, and human dumping of nonnative fish and trash into the
anchialine pools that support the anchialine pool shrimp Vetericaris
chaceorum (Factor D).
There are serious and ongoing threats to six plant species (Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyrtandra wagneri,
Platydesma remyi, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, and S. hawaiiensis)
and the picture-wing fly due to factors associated with small numbers
of populations and individuals; to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri, and potentially to
Pittosporum hawaiiense from hybridization; to Cyanea tritomantha,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, and Pritchardia lanigera from
the lack of regeneration in the wild; and to the picture-wing fly from
competition for host plants with nonnative flies and declining numbers
of host plants (Factor E) (see Table 3).
The anchialine pool shrimp faces threats from the intentional
dumping of trash and introduction of nonnative fish into its pool
habitat in the two known locations. In addition, the pools that support
Vetericaris chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo are potentially vulnerable to
intentional physical alteration (i.e., sedimentation) (Bailey-Brock and
Brock 1993, pp. 338-355; Brock 2004, pp. iii and 16) (Factor E) (see
Table 3).
These threats are exacerbated by these species' inherent
vulnerability to extinction from stochastic events at any time because
of their endemism, small numbers of individuals and populations, and
restricted habitats.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that each of these 15 endemic
species is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire
range, based on the severity and scope of the ongoing and projected
threats described above. These threats are exacerbated by small
population sizes, the loss of redundancy and resiliency of these
species, and the continued inadequacy of existing protective
regulations. Based on our analysis, we have no reason to believe that
population trends for any of the species that are the subjects of this
final rule will improve, nor will the negative impacts of current
threats acting on the species be effectively ameliorated in the future.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we are listing the following 15 species as endangered
species in accordance with section 3(6) of the Act: The plants Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra
wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma
remyi, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, Schiedea
hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae; the anchialine pool shrimp,
Vetericaris chaceorum; and the picture-wing fly, Drosophila digressa.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant
[[Page 64687]]
listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Each of the 15 Hawaii Island species
listed as endangered in this final rule is highly restricted in its
range, and the threats occur throughout its range. Therefore, we
assessed the status of each species throughout its entire range. In
each case, the threats to the survival of these species occur
throughout the species' ranges and are not restricted to any particular
portion of those ranges. Accordingly, our assessment and determination
applies to each species throughout its entire range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies: Private
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities involving listed animals and
plants are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that help to determine when a species may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outlines, draft recovery plans, and the final
recovery plans will be available from our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and
private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private and State lands.
Funding for recovery actions may be available from a variety of
sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In addition, under section 6 of the Act,
the State of Hawaii will be eligible for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the protection and recovery of the 15
species. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for these species. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on these species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act mandates that all Federal agencies
shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act. Section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect the continued existence of a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
For the 15 plants and animals listed as endangered species in this
final rule, Federal agency actions that may require consultation as
described in the preceding paragraph include, but are not limited to,
actions within the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and branches of the Department of Defense (DOD). Examples of
these types of actions include activities funded or authorized under
the Farm Bill Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Ground
and Surface Water Conservation Program, Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.), Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and DOD construction
activities related to training or other military missions.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife and plants. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for
wildlife and 17.61 for plants, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make
it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import,
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed wildlife species. It is also illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the Act
prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal
jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or
destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or
regulation, including State criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions
to the
[[Page 64688]]
prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation
agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered or threatened wildlife or plant species under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.22 and 17.62 for endangered wildlife and plants, respectively.
With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
and survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. For endangered plants, a permit must be
issued for scientific purposes or for the enhancement of propagation or
survival. Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed
species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Ecological Services,
Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181
(telephone 503-231-6131; facsimile 503-231-6243).
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of listed species. The
following activities could potentially result in a violation of section
9 of the Act; however, this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Activities that take or harm the picture-wing fly or anchialine
pool shrimp by causing significant habitat modification or degradation
such that it causes actual injury by significantly impairing its
essential behavior patterns. This may include introduction of nonnative
species that compete with or prey upon the picture-wing fly or
anchialine pool shrimp, or the unauthorized release of biological
control agents that attack any life stage of these two species; and
(3) Damaging or destroying any of the 13 listed plants in violation
of the Hawaii State law prohibiting take of listed species.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Ecological
Services, Endangered Species Permits, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE.
11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone 503-231-6131; facsimile
503-231-6243).
Federal listing of the 15 species included in this rule
automatically invokes State listing under Hawaii's Endangered Species
law (H.R.S. 195D 1-32) and supplements the protection available under
other State laws. These protections prohibit take of these species and
encourage conservation by State government agencies. Further, the State
may enter into agreements with Federal agencies to administer and
manage any area required for the conservation, management, enhancement,
or protection of endangered species (H.R.S. 195D-5). Funds for these
activities could be made available under section 6 of the Act
(Cooperation with the States). Thus, the Federal protection afforded to
these species by listing them as endangered species is reinforced and
supplemented by protection under State law.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rule is available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2012-0070 and upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--AMENDED
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, as follows:
0
a. By adding an entry for ``Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing'' in
alphabetical order under INSECTS; and
0
b. By adding an entry for the ``Shrimp, anchialine pool'' in
alphabetical order under CRUSTACEANS, to read as set forth below.
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 64689]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing....... Drosophila digressa. U.S.A. (HI)........ Entire............. E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Crustaceans
* * * * * * *
Shrimp, anchialine pool.......... Vetericaris U.S.A. (HI)........ Entire............. E 818 NA NA
chaceorum.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants,
as follows:
0
a. By removing the entry for Caesalpinia kavaiense under FLOWERING
PLANTS; and
0
b. By adding entries for Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana,
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha,
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri, Mezoneuron kavaiense,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi,
Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, Schiedea
hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae, in alphabetical order under
FLOWERING PLANTS, to read as set forth below.
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants.................
* * * * * * *
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. Kookoolau........... U.S.A. (HI)........ Asteraceae......... E 818 NA NA
hillebrandiana.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla Kookoolau........... U.S.A. (HI)........ Asteraceae......... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Cyanea marksii................... Haha................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Campanulaceae...... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Cyanea tritomantha............... Aku................. U.S.A. (HI)........ Campanulaceae...... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis.......... Haiwale............. U.S.A. (HI)........ Gesneriaceae....... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Cyrtandra wagneri................ Haiwale............. U.S.A. (HI)........ Gesneriaceae....... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Mezoneuron kavaiense............. Uhi uhi............. U.S.A. (HI)........ Fabaceae........... E 238 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Phyllostegia floribunda.......... None................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Lamiaceae.......... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Pittosporum hawaiiense........... Hoawa, haawa........ U.S.A. (HI)........ Pittosporaceae..... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Platydesma remyi................. None................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Rutaceae........... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Pritchardia lanigera............. Loulu............... U.S.A. (HI)........ Arecaceae.......... E 818 NA NA
[[Page 64690]]
* * * * * * *
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei.... None................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Caryophyllaceae.... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Schiedea hawaiiensis............. None................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Caryophyllaceae.... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Stenogyne cranwelliae............ None................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Lamiaceae.......... E 818 NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: September 3, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-24103 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P